An Answer to Mr Tombes Examination of Infant Baptism, Response (2 of 3)

An Answer to Mr Tombes Examination of Infant Baptism · Response (2 of 3)

p. 25As for the place out of which this argument is drawn, Coloſ. 2.11, 12. Mr. Tombes ſaith, that the Text doth not ſay we are circumciſed, becauſe we are baptized, but we are compleat in him, becauſe we are circumciſed in him, and buried with him in baptiſme; I muſt needs ſuſpect this mans learning, or his honeſty, elſe he would never abuſe his ignorant Reader thus: what, Mr. Tombes, doth the Text ſay, ye are compleat, becauſe circumciſed? Let men that can examine the Text ſee, and they ſhall find, foreign our tranſlators have dealt more faithfully with us then ſo, that have tranſlated it, in whom alſo that is, we are not only compleat in him, but we are alſo circumciſed with the circumciſion of the heart: we have that mercy ſealed unto us, though circumciſion be taken away, and we might ſeem to be without that confirmation or ſigne of the purity of heart, which our Fathers had. Why ſaith S. Paul? Chriſt was circumciſed, and that gave an efficacy to the circumciſion of our: Fathers circumciſion ended in Chriſt, and is not deſcended to us, but the effect of circumciſion is in the circumciſion of Chriſt, part of the body was put off, in circumciſion, but the body of ſin was ſignified: now this Chriſt did in circumciſion, not only ſo, but by buriall he put off that body, that became ſin for us, of both which ye are partakers, being buried with him in baptiſme; ſo that baptiſme doth entitle us to circumciſion of the heart, by the circumciſion and buriall of Chriſt, as the circumciſion of the Jewes was made effectuall by the circumciſion of Chriſt; ſo we have the ſame grace expreſſed by cicumciſion of the heart, in baptiſme: it could not be plainer expreſſed, if it had been ſaid, that the benefit of circumciſion by Chriſt is made yours by baptiſme; Circumciſion was the ſeal of circumciſion of the heart to the Jews: circumciſion of the heart is ſealed by baptiſme to you; For it ſaith plainly, in whom alſo ye are circumciſed with circumciſion made without hands, in putting off the ſins of the fleſh by the circumciſion of Chriſt, the means of all this conveyed unto you by baptiſme; no man can deny that circumciſion in the fleſh, did ſignifie, and ſacramentally ſeal the circumciſion of the heart which the Apoſtle here affirmeth of Baptiſme. After all this incongruous ſtuffe, Mr. Tombes denieth that baptiſme doth ſucceed circumciſion, and therefore Infants are not as capable of baptiſme as of circumciſion; he hath confeſſed that faith is as requiſite for one as the p. 26other, in regard they ſtand both in the ſame relation to faith, and thereby confeſſeth what he doth deny, and yet no more then the Scripture doth affirm.

Mr. Tombes falleth out with this argument, and in a metaphoricall way talketh of an Egge, out of which, if not reſtrainedly taken, nothing can be gathered: but that baptiſme and circumciſion in ſome things ſignifie the ſame; and do ſo Noahs flood, and the red ſea, yet do we not ſay that baptiſme ſucceeded into their place, much leſſe do we inferre any right to be inſtituted in their ſteed, reſpecting the ſame perſons; I do profeſſe I was troubled to parallel this non-ſenſe with any thing that might equall it: if we could get theſe Anabaptiſts to ſpeak ſenſe, a man might the better deal with them. Can any man make any thing of this after Mr. Tombes hath allowed that they both ſignifie the righeouſneſſe of faith? that both ſignifie the ſanctification of the heart; are they again turned into materiam primam, that Noahs flood might be parallelled with baptiſme, as well as circumciſion. You bid us take heed of ſuch argumentation; you might ſay baptiſme, and ſpeaking, in ſome things, do agree (in prolatione verborum;) and waſhing pots in ſome thing, in waſhing, in action with whatſoever we can do. Your argument to Noahs Ark, is fallacia conſequentiae à genere ad ſpeciem affi…mativè, thus Noahs Ark agreeth with baptiſme in ſomething, therefore in ſacramentall nature; as if a man ſhould ſay, eſt animal, ergo equ…s, it is a living creature, ergo, an horſe.

The collection that nothing can be gathered in a reſtrained ſenſe, but that baptiſme in ſome things ſignifie the ſame; yes, more then that, they agree in ſome things, we may gather in what they agree; they agree in the nature of a ſacrament; in divine inſtitution; in the …eal of faith: they muſt be adminiſtred to all to whom the tender of grace is made, not only to all that are partakers of grace. The firſt, in reſpect of providence limited to a narrow compaſſe, and by the ordinance bounded within the nation of Jews, though not to the perſons of the Jews: all nations might come in and be circumciſed, and offer ſacrifice, and eat the Paſſ… over, but they might ſacrifice no where but at Ieruſalem; but now the ordinances are tendered to all nations, and baptiſme muſt be adminiſtred to all nations, no aſſignation of perſons by the commiſſion, ſurely the commiſſion was not invented by man: Chriſt commandeth his Diſciples to baptize all nations; here is not men, women, nor children, we muſt baptize ſome body; it muſt then be examined who they are that muſt be baptized? it is no wil-worſhip to baptize, it is no will-worſhip to baptize all nations, to baptize whom we pleaſe, and refuſe others without ground out of Scripture, that is will-worſhip. Now, theſe perſons muſt be found à ſubjecto capaci from the capacity of the ſubject, or from the judgement of the perſons in commiſſion to baptize. Your part requireth, that you prove Infants are unfits ſubjects, and I will prove in due time, that Miniſters are unfit judges: For, arguments drawn from analogies, I willingly grant to be invalid, if you mind analogies of proportion, to invent any part of Gods worſhip by; as if we p. 27had invented baptiſme by rules of proportion, but being commanded to baptize all Nations, and told that it ſhould ſtand us in the ſame ſtead that circumciſion, in reference to ſuch principles as concerne us moſt, and did equally concerne the Iewes in the ſame reſpects, and telling us now the particular priviledge of the Iewes ſhould ceaſe, and the ordinances ſhould freely be communicated to all Nations; never ſpeaketh one word of the particular qualification of the perſon of them that are to be baptized, he leaveth that to be underſtood ex natura rei under the Goſpell; God dealeth with the Church as fathers with their children; when they come of years tell them the ground and reaſon of things, leaving circumſtances, which neceſſity will drive them upon unto their own diſcretion; whereas when they are children the father directeth them to the ſenſitive part not acquainting them with the reaſon, but ſupplieth the defect of the infant with the particular direction of the fact to be done, having a care that he take not more upon him then he is able to beare; but when he becommeth a man if he ſhould ſtill continue in ſuch ſimplicity as inſiſt upon the ſame rule, and take no notice of any reaſonable inſtruction; nor by comparing his ſtrength with infancie judge nothing of his owne power, but ſtill looke for the ſame direction as he had when he was a childe, when the father chooſeth rather to inſtruct him by reaſon, then by ſenſe, he could not eſcape the juſt cenſure of a foole. God our Father telleth us that baptiſme doth circumciſe the heart, ſealeth faith as circumciſion did, Go baptize all Nations; this is enough for a man when he is told the nature of baptiſme by compariſon with circumciſion; and ſhewed the difference in caſe of women and appropriation to the Jewes, to direct them by a rationall proportion with what God did direct his Church in infancie: ye ſhall circumciſe no more, but ye ſhall baptize; that ſhall have the ſame operation upon the heart, and you ſhall not reſtraine my worſhip to Jeruſalem as of old, but goe to all Nations: If any ſhall further object, But what ſay you to Infants? I ſay nothing, but that baptiſme in reſpect of my worſhip, and the operation it hath upon the heart, is the ſame with circumciſion; and you know what direction I gave to my Church when ſhee was in infancie concerning circumciſion; you are capable of as much purity of heart as they were then▪ that is all I ſay; you are now of yeares, whilſt you were children I taught your ſenſe, now I teach your underſtanding; as for argument from analogie, though it doth come farre ſhort of an argument from precept; yet it is equall with an argument from example; for indeed all that can be drawne from an example is by analogie, and among analogies thoſe are more certain that are drawne from a precept, then thoſe that are drawne barely from an example, without any ſhadow of a precept, when the analogie is made by God, and we are led to the thing ſignified by Gods-owne direction, and told that circumciſion of the heart is the ſame under baptiſme, as under circumciſion of the fleſh: how dare we ſay that infancie maketh men uncapable of circumciſion of the heart? when p. 28God ſometime did declare, that that ſhould be no obſtacle to the adminiſtration of the ſigne, ſeeing we are truſted with adminiſtration of the ſigne not with the judgement of the heart; but as for that rabblement of analogies which he talketh of out of Durands Irrationale, they are things of no analogie with this. I further ſay, that it is not the proportion of the ſigne with the thing ſignified, that maketh a Sacrament but inſtitution; I hope no man will affirme that baptiſme wanteth inſtitution: and as for the perſon, if you will have him adultus, I make no queſtion you ſhall runne upon a greater neceſſity of will-worſhip, then by adminiſtring of it to Infants, as I hope upon further occaſion to make appeare.

Your third argument is out of the verge of your owne method, as not being drawne from any place of Scripture, and therefore I omit that, and come to your fourth Argument from the Acts 2.38, 39.

He frameth the Argument well, if the Propoſition wanted not forme, it ſhould be they to whom the promiſe belongeth are to be baptized; but Infants of beleevers are they to whom the promiſe belongeth, therefore Infants of beleevers are to be baptized.

Mr. Tombes before he can make any anſwer to the argument, hee muſt fit his anſwer, that is, he muſt miſquote and miſapply two or three places of Scripture to the intent his Reader may conceive, that the promiſe that was there meant was not the promiſe made to Abraham, but the promiſe of ſending Jeſus Chriſt: others ſay ſending the Holy Ghoſt, all is one, if Chriſt had not been ſent, the Holy Ghoſt had not beene ſent; and the ſending Chriſt was the promiſe made to Abraham, as I have proved before out of Luke 1.73. But Mr. Tombes quoteth ſome places of Scriptures, as if a man in them ſhould finde ſo plaine a difference from the promiſe made to Abraham, and there ſpoken of by St. Peter, as muſt needs give full ſatisfaction to all that doubt of that: but let us view thoſe places, Acts 3.25. Yee are the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers, ſaying unto Abraham, And in thy ſeed ſhall all the kindreds of the earth bee bleſſed; that is plaine enough of the promiſe to Abraham, Act. 13.32, 33. And we declare unto you glad tydings, how that the promiſe that was made unto the Fathers, God hath fulfilled the ſame unto us, Rom. 15.8, 9. Now I ſay that Jeſus Chriſt was the Miniſter of circumciſion for the truth of God to confirme the promiſes made unto the Fathers: read and judge, and judge what Mr. Tombes hath gotten by theſe places to prove any difference from this promiſe here ſpoken of, and the promiſe made to Abraham: But ſaid Mr. Tombes, the promiſe was made to them he ſpoke to and their children, & to them that are afar off, whether they be Gentiles who are ſaid to be afarre off, Eph. 2.17. or Iews in future ages, as Beza is doubtfull: indeed Beza doth argue that Peter did not then know the call of the Gentiles, or if he had, it is not likely that he would have told the Iewes of it; it might be, Peter did not at that time know the Nationall calling of the p. 29Gentiles that was afterward made knowne to him; for then he could not properly have ſaid of them that they were afarre off in reſpect of the Iewes, but Peter was not ignorant that as many of the Gentiles as the Lord ſhould call had right to the promiſe, and this was in no age offenſive to the Iewes: they alwayes knew that one law was to the homeborne and the ſtranger that ſojourneth among them, Exod. 12, 48, that is, when and after they were called; they were put into the ſame condition with the Iewes in reference to the promiſe; it is plaine that the promiſe in reference to Baptiſme is the ſame that it was in reference to circumciſion: now it is true he further teacheth the inner power and effect of the Covenant which was the turning men away from their iniquity: this is the doctrine both of circumciſion and baptiſme, that neither circumciſion which is outward in the fleſh is circumciſion, Rom. 2.28. neither is that baptiſme which is outward, but that is circumciſion which is of the heart, whoſe praiſe is not of men, but of God. Thus baptiſme muſt be taught, it muſt be taught as from God, it muſt bee adminiſtred as by men; therefore ſaith Mr. Tombes, the promiſe is not made but on conditions of calling, and faith which may be confirmed abundantly, Rom. 4.13, 14, 16. let the proofe be examined, St. Paul doth handle the promiſe made to Abraham in reference to the fruit and effect of it, and ſo to entitle the Gentiles to the comfort and fruit of the promiſe, foraſmuch as the promiſe did alwayes beare that ſenſe, that never any of Abrahams poſterity had any benefit from the promiſe unleſſe they were beleevers, and that benefit the Gentiles alwayes had if proſelites, and now in a more free way; and this was ground to the Romans to ſeeke for juſtification by faith, becauſe that was alwayes the ſence and meaning of the Covenant made with Abraham; but this was the uſe that the faithfull ought to make of the Covenant: Abraham was juſtified by faith as we are; Abraham was not juſtified by circumciſion, nor we by baptiſme; circumciſion was adminiſtred in facie Eccleſiae, according to the appointment of God, men had nothing to doe to examin faith, the praiſe of that was not of men, but of God: it is confeſſed that Abraham did circumciſe without any judgement of faith, yet had as much need of faith for benefit by the Covenant as we, his juſtification and ſalvation the ſame with ours by faith in Chriſt, Gal. 3.9. They which be of faith are bleſſed with faithfull Abraham: ye ſee Abraham himſelfe had his bleſſing by faith, God preached the Goſpell to Abraham, the ſeed of Abraham had the benefit of the covenant by faith: whereby it plainly appears that circumciſion was not given by the eſtimation of faith, though it had its effect by faith; but every male of Abraham muſt be circumciſed, and that becauſe of the promiſe, the conditions of faith and repentance were not new conditions put on us which Abraham and his poſterity had not, though they are more plainly preached to us then to Abraham, God was the judge of faith in Abrahams time, and is ſo now, but the promiſe of the land of Canaan ſtood upon conditions of obedience the effect p. 30of faith, notwithſtanding circumciſion: but, ſaith Mr. Tombes, the promiſe was not belonging to them ſimply as Jews, but as called, the promiſe did belong to all men, quatenus called, but it belonged to Jews, though not quatenus ipſum, yet it doth belong to Jews to be foederati, foreign, every Jew had an intereſt to the promiſe, though not quatenus, a Jew, becauſe Gentiles alſo had this right, per accidens, as called, but it was accidentall to the Gentiles, ſome were called, and ſome were not; all Iews before Chriſt were called, but note, that called is to be diſtinguiſhed into outward calling, and inward or effectuall calling: by an outward calling, All the Iews were called: by an effectuall, only the elect were called; whether Iew or Gentile, both theſe callings had their ſeverall reſpects unto the promiſe, and the ſeal of the promiſe: The outward call had a right to the Oracles, Rom. 3.1. the means of faith, and accordingly many had faith by that means, though ſome did not believe, that doth not make the faith of God of none effect; the promiſe of God ſignified by the word faith, in that place, is effectuall, though ſome do not believe, though it be without effect to them that believe not, yet it is effectuall to them that believe; and though he doth not believe, yet the Holy Ghoſt maketh circumciſion an inſeparable accident to a Iew, ſhewing, that the advantage of the Iew, and the profit of circumciſion were the ſame, and the chief priviledge is, that unto them were committed the Oracles of God. Now, this outward call had the promiſe of God being their God, and the God of their ſeed, and accordingly had the ſeal given to them and their ſeed: this is plain in caſe of the Iews, they had circumciſion, and the Oracles, and the promiſe, but all theſe are ineffectuall, without faith, Heb. 4.1, 2. Let us therefore fear, leſt a promiſe being left us of entring into his reſt, any one of us come ſhort of it: For, unto us was the Goſpel preached, as well as unto them, but the Word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. You ſee, many have the promiſe left them that may come ſhort of it, they may have the Word without profit, the promiſe of God, circumciſion without effect, all for want of faith, all theſe externall, have an externall dependance one upon another: thoſe that were born in a believing family, had an externall promiſe left them, had cirumciſion, had the word, though they might come ſhort of the effect of all for want of faith; yet the externall adminiſtration muſt go by this outward rule; the promiſe in this place is underſtood in this ſenſe of outward promiſe that belongeth to you and your children, you are called already; and that is implied in the oppoſition to theſe words afar off, ſuch as are afar off is oppoſed to them that are nigh. Now, they that are nigh need no calling, but they that are afarre off, them we call; ſo that it is plain, calling is in reference to them that are afar off; and then the ſenſe of the words is as plain the promiſe belongeth to you and your children, therefore be baptized: and the promiſe likewiſe belongeth to them that are afarre off, not yet called, as many of them as the Lord ſhall call: and this appears, in that the Apoſtle p. 31ſpeaks unto theſe Iews, & exhorts them to amend their lives, and be baptized, for the promiſe belongeth to them, ſo that the Propoſition is immediatly true, they ſhall be baptized, becauſe the promiſe did belong to them, calling of them that are afarre off, is not at all immediately referred to baptiſme, but to the promiſe, and therefore cannot by any means be a limitation of ſuch perſons, unto whom the promiſe did belong, to make fit for baptiſme, as if there were ſome perſons unto whom the promiſe did belong, that were not called, and ſome called; thoſe that are called might be baptized, but unto whom the promiſe doth belong, and are not called, they may not be baptized: but this is to alter the form and ſenſe of the Apoſtles words, though they might have a truth in them, yet they are not the words of the Text, nor ſignifie what is there ſaid: Amendment of life hath not relation to baptiſme, but to that ſin they ſtood guilty of, and that they were convict that they had crucified the Lord of glory: the immediate argument that he uſeth to perſwade them to baptiſme, is, that the promiſe belongeth to them, it is no argument at all why they ſhould be baptized, becauſe the promiſe belonged to their children, nor becauſe the promiſe belonged to them that are afarre off, but becauſe it belonged to them, that only was ground, why the Apoſtle ſhould perſwade to be baptized: what is further added, is to note the amplitude of the promiſe, to raiſe up their faith, to lay hold on the promiſe of ſo bountifull a God, that extendeth his promiſes ſo largely, not to them only, but to their children, nor ſtayeth his bounty there, but reacheth it out alſo to them that are not called, to wit, ſuch of them as he ſhall call; you and your children, ſenſu determinate, them them that are afarre off, ſenſu indeterminate; but if all had been limited by as many as the Lord ſhall call, S. Peter had drawn an univerſall concluſion out of particular premiſes: For, if that part of the verſe alledged, out of which the Apoſtle doth inferre this concluſion, or inference be limited, then the propoſition is particular, as thus: If the ſenſe of the words be, the promiſe belongeth to as many of you as the Lord ſhall call, then it is no more but the promiſe belongeth to ſome of you, a few of you, therefore be baptized every one, had been a very irrationall argument; nay, if you reſtrain promiſe to its ſtrict ſenſe, for promiſe with effect to the effectually called, then it can belong to a very few of them; therefore every one of you be baptized, were very ſtrange: The promiſe therefore muſt be underſtood in ſuch a ſenſe, as it was when applied to Abrahams ſeed, according to the fleſh; as the faith of God in his promiſe, is not of none effect, though ſome do not believe, the promiſe muſt be underſtood by us, as left for all, though all attain not to it, and this not in reference to univerſall grace, but univerſall diſpenſation of means by us men; and herein God did go before us by his owne direction in the infancy of his Church, leaving us to walk by the ſame rule; when we have a more ample diſpenſation of the means of grace committed to us. God did command all Abrahams ſeed to be circumciſed, and all circumciſed to p. 32eat the Paſſeover, though they were taught alwayes they ſhould not poſſeſſe the land of Canaan unleſſe they obeyed the voice of the Lord, Deut. 28. and 29. Chapters: and all along, Moſes and the Prophets preach the bleſſing to the beleever, and though under the forme of works, not the covenant of works; it was faith that God looked, as in Heb. 11. all the workes of the Patriachs are aſcribed to faith, and Abrahams obedience is commended by his faith; and he and they juſtified by faith, and not by workes: faith grounded on the ſame truth of God, and the ſame Chriſt; God uſeth the ſame liberty of his will, Rom. 9.15. in the diſpenſation of his grace, 13. An inſtance out of the old Teſtament in Eſau and Jacob will ſerve as well as in Peter and Judas; the grace of God did no more nor leſſe depend on Sacraments then now. God did not account any man circumciſed but a beleever, no more doth he now baptized; Moſes and the Prophets did teach faith and obedience, ſo do the Apoſtles, and that notwithſtanding the promiſe; yet the unbeleever and murmurer ſhall not enter into the land of Canaan: thus went the doctrine, thus the eſtimation of God in all ages, the diſpenſation of Word and Sacraments to the Iewes, and them that were afarre off as many as the Lord ſhall call under the Law; but now to all Nations all are now called, God doth command all men every where to repent; in the ſence of theſe words all the world have an outward calling. St. Peter doth argue with the Jewes to perſwade them to Baptiſme, à notioribus, they knew right well the bounds and extent of the promiſe; it was no new thing to them that the Gentiles called, ſhould be accounted among theſe to whom the promiſe did belong: nor that baptiſme did legally waſh away ſinne, nor that ſinners muſt repent, but that the promiſe ſhould be ſealed by baptiſme, that only was new: as for that Peter did teach repentance with baptiſme both together, as ſaith Mr. Tombs, that is not the queſtion; repentance and faith ought to be taught at all times, as being ſuch things as God doth only look on moſt ſeaſonably at all times to all men, Luke 13.3. Except ye repent, ye ſhall all likewiſe periſh: but out of this place it doth no way follow that repentance muſt goe before, or is required as a preparation to baptiſme, verſe 38. is an anſwer to this queſtion, what ſhall we doe? we, that have crucified the Lord of glory? if to this generall queſtion, what ſhall we doe? Peter had failed to inſtruct them to repent, he had been wanting to his duty, but preſently to argue from the promiſe to move them to baptiſme, and baptiſe them preſently will ſcarce ſtand with any Anabaptiſticall diſcipline; you would hardly have any great company of Catechumen's if you follow the example of the Apoſtle, which you ſo much ſtand upon, nay the keeping men of years, many yeares under the diſcipline of Catechumen's directly contrary to the Apoſtles example. But of preparation to baptiſme we ſhall have further occaſion to conſider in other arguments. Mr. Tombes telleth us, that the promiſe doth not belong to all Infants of beleevers, which is the minor univerſally taken: he hath formerly p. 33told us of women, and believers before Abraham. I have formerly given ſatisfaction to thoſe exceptions, but the promiſe is to be underſtood three wayes, as before may appear: Either firſt, in eſtimation of God, or, ſecondly, in diſpenſation of the inward grace of the Sacraments, and effectuall operation of the means, or, thirdly, in the outward diſpenſation of the means of grace: The two former are diſtributed according to the election of grace to the believer only, but the laſt, under the Law, to Abraham and his ſeed, and in Abrahams ſeed, which is Chriſt, to all the families of the earth: But now in a more explicit and plain way to all the nations of the earth; and that not only in p…tentia, but by particular diſpenſation, and providence unto many nations in actu exercito, actually many nations have the Word and Sacraments, and God grant more may have: But it ſeemeth, he granteth the promiſe doth belong to ſome of the Infants of believers, but which they are, he cannot tell, and therefore will baptize none: The way of God was to Abraham, that becauſe he could not diſtinguiſh, he ſhould circumciſe all: God commandeth baptiſme to be adminiſtred to all nations; it will not ſerve our turns in the day of the Lord, to ſay, we did not know who did believe, and who did not: it may, and will be anſwered again, who made thee a judge of faith? thou art a Miniſter of baptiſme, not a judge of faith, that is flatly denied thee: he that is a judge, is a Lord over them whom they judge, which thou art not: it were indeed great impiety, to adminiſter baptiſme to any whom we knew God had deſtinated to everlaſting damnation, but to take upon us to paſſe that ſentence on any perſon, were moſt high preſumption, much more on any Infant: we have commiſſion to baptize all nations, but without conſent we cannot baptize any nation, and this is a good excuſe: he, ſaith the Text, ſpeaketh not of Infants, but children indefinitely: but it ſpeaketh of children in reference to the promiſe made to Abraham, which was extended not to Abrahams children only, but the Infants of beliving Gentiles, as before: thus of the Argument from Acts 2.

As for the firſt argument, taken from 1 Cor. 7.14. that the Infants of a believer are holy, I have already proved: that Infants of a believer, though not of the ſeed of Abraham, are federally holy, and that in the words of the promiſe made to Abraham doth appear: As for that the words in 1 Cor. 7.14. Elſe were your children unholy: I ſay, it may well be an alluſion to that federall holineſſe, as I conceive, though the argument be not ſo cleer, that among others more plain I ſhall inſiſt upon; yet not ſo improbable, that much may not be ſaid: for the preſent thing I affirm, that the children of believing Gentiles are federally holy, for the argument, I neither aſſert it, nor diſclame it, but refer my Reader to that that hath been ſpoken of that matter, by other men, whoſe learning and judgements I honour, and come to the ſixth argument.

The ſixt argument is taken from Mat. 19.14. which is repeated in Mark and p. 34Luke: ſuffer little children to come to me, for of ſuch is the kingdome of God. The argument is, that thoſe of whom the kingdome of heaven is, are to be baptized, but Infants are ſuch of whom the kingdome of heaven is; therefore Infants are to be baptized: For, that of coming to Chriſt, though the reaſon doth plainly convince that in this place, more is meant then a corporall coming, ſeeing many come to Chriſt corporally, of whom nothing is affirmed concerning the kingdome of God: as for his eight circumſtances, he hath gathered nothing for, or againſt the argument: they ſerve for nothing but to make a noiſe of Mr. Tombes his learning, that he can obſerve eight circumſtances, of which he rejected divers as not pertaining to the argument: the other he maketh nothing of, but that Chriſt did not baptize theſe children, which no man that I know, ever affirmed: but doth it follow, becauſe they were not baptized, therefore children may not be baptized? after Chriſt had given direction to his Apoſtles and Miniſters unto the end of the world to baptize all nations, and now telleth his Diſciples that to ſuch belongeth the kingdome of heaven: which kingdome of heaven in other places is underſtood of the ſtate of the Church, after the publication of the Goſpel, which began after that Chriſt roſe from the dead, into which kingdome, Iohn the Baptiſt never entred. Now, theſe little children, Luke 18.16. were foreign little, foreign, recens nati, young ones: Secondly, they were ſuch, unto whom the kingdome of God did belong: Thirdly, they were ſuch in their viſible condition they were in, and theſe things do all plainly appear, 1. that they were little ones, by the word foreign, the derivation, doth ſignifie, or ſhew it: but Mr. Tombes ſaith, words are not be expounded by their derivation, but by their uſe: But how can he know how a word is uſed, but by its ſignification: Suppoſe a man ſhould call a man that is grown a babe, for ſome childiſh condition that he perceiveth in him; doth it follow that a bab…e doth ſignifie a man of twenty or thirty yeers old? I conceive Authors do uſe liberty of words, but where infirmity cannot be laid upon the Auhour, nor penury of words upon the language, much muſt be aſcribed to the choyce of words, with conſideration of their derivation; but ſee what confutation, that they were not Infants, foreign, ſaith Mr. Tombes, ſignifies no more but embrace, foreign, ſignifieth ſo much; the Propoſition …, may adde ſomething more then to embrace: but why muſt it ſignifie to embrace a grown perſon? becauſe Mar. 9.36. he places them in the midſt, as though a child that can ſtand alone, might not be taken up in arms: yea, but he warneth not to ſcandalize them, as though a childe might not be taken up in arms, that may be taught to ſwear and lie, and by many evill examples, led out of the way of God, or cauſe to ſtumble, but the word foreign, ſaith he, ſignifieth a childe capable of teaching: it is apparent that foreign, doth ſignifie an Infant in his mothers belly, Luke 1.44. Now, how long it doth continue foreign, is the queſtion. Mr. Tombes ſaith, foreign ſignifieth a childe capable of teaching: but ſee how he p. 35proveth it from the 2 Tim. 3.15. foreign, whence hee gathereth that foreign doth ſignifie a childe capable of teaching: Mr. Tombes will put no difference between from his childhood and in his childhood: from intimateth that whilſt he was foreign, then he knew not, but when he ceaſed to bee foreign, then he knew: that is ſaith he, ever ſince he was a boy, then not when hee was a boy; but when doth a man …eaſe to be an infant, and begin to become a boy? For my part I underſtand not by what rules he walketh ſeeing they were infants in Chriſts armes, for ought Mr. Tombs hath or can ſay to the contrary: But ſaith he, they were capable of teaching, ſuch they might be though in armes; but how doth or can hee prove theſe children were ſuch? he will ſay the proofe lyeth on our part, that they were not capable of inſtruction: true, it doth if we will have any benefit by the argument, a demonſtration that they were not, I cannot give, but probably I can, and far before any you can give to the contrary: Firſt thoſe that brought them brought them not to that end that they ſhould bee inſtructed, but that he ſhould touch them and bieſſe them; neither doth our Saviour at all teach them, or ſay any thing to the children: certainly if they had been capable of inſtruction, he would not have omitted to have given them ſome ſmall directions, ſuch as they were capable of, and not have bleſſed them, and taught them nothing; for that derivation of foreign quaſi foreign madidus, that cannot be underſtood of the moiſture of temperature, which in ſome ſenſe is given to young perſons till they ceaſe to grow, till a naturall drith falleth upon their bones that hindereth their further augmentation, but that moiſture is ſuch as is on children new borne: what Mr. Goodwin ſaith of it, I have not ſeen.

But Mr. Tombes ſaith, that it is doubtfull whether our Saviour ſaith of them is the Kingdome of heaven, becauſe the word is foreign, not foreign, of ſuch, not of them. It is plaine our Saviour urgeth the relation they had to the Kingdome of heaven to move his diſciples to ſuffer them to come to him: now it could not have been any reaſon why theſe ſhould be admitted into the preſence of Chriſt, becauſe others had relation to the Kingdome of God, but the truth foreign, hath a further emphaſis; for the words are not urged to ſhew a reaſon why the children ſhould come to Chriſt, but why the diſciples ſhould ſuffer them, and therefore Chriſt doth repreſent theſe children to his diſciples, not under ſuch a character as they did appear to him by his omniſcience, but ſuch as they were able to judge of, and therefore he ſaith, not foreign but foreign, as if he ſhould ſay, well ye have forbidden children to come unto me, but it was out of ignorance; now I tell you if any ſuch as theſe are ſhall come hereafter, forbid them not, for of ſuch is the Kingdome of heaven: The precept is given to the Diſciples in terminis intelligibilibus, in words, and in a ſenſe that may be underſtood by them: as if Chriſt ſhould have ſaid, To many of theſe little ones the Kindome of heaven doth not belong, but you are excuſed for that, inſomuch as the Kingdome of heaven doth p. 36belong to ſuch, you are not able to diſcerne the difference, and therefore it cannot … ſaid to your charge that you did ſuffer any wilfully to enter into the Kingdome of God, that the Kingdome of God did not belong unto. But the Apoſtles might have anſwered, nay Sir, but we can diſcerne theſe unfit for the Kingdome of heaven, they have not actuall faith and repentance, and therefore we may not admit them into the Kingdome of heaven: to this our Saviours anſwer is plaine; the Kingdome of heaven doth belong to ſuch as theſe, therefore ſuffer them to come to me: Now for the further manifeſtation of the ſenſe of theſe words, the Kingdome of God is underſtood, either of the Kingdome of grace, or the Kingdome of glory belonging to the elect only, or of the Kingdome of the viſible Church where men walke under the meanes of grace. 2. The comming unto Chriſt may be underſtood of comming to Chriſt motu locali, or comming to him by faith as he ſitteth in his Kingdome of grace and glory: or laſt of all comming to him as he ſitteth in the Kingdome of the viſible Church: Chriſt hath a reſidence in the Kingdom of glory and in the Kingdom of grace. Now no man can come to Chriſt as he ſitteth in the ſtate of grace or glory, but by faith agreed on by all parties; but Chriſt likewiſe ſitteth in the Kingdome of his viſible Church, and teacheth them as the Prophet promiſed by Moſes, and there inviteth all nations to the uſe of the meanes, and commandeth his Miniſters to baptize all nations, and ſuffer little children, not thoſe onelyonly that Chriſt bleſſed and gave eſpeciall teſtimony unto; but thoſe that were but like unto them foreign, they muſt be permitted to come to Chriſt. Now the queſtion is, whether this comming to Chriſt is underſtood only of corporall comming to Chriſt or any, or in which of thoſe reſpects this comming to Chriſt is here underſtood; though I dare not deny a corporall comming to Chriſt is there intimated, yet this is not all that is meant in the direction, Suffer little children to come to me; for the bare comming to Chriſts perſon could not have beene inferred from this aſſertion, for to them belongeth the Kingdome of God. I ſit in the kingdome of the viſible Church to diſpence ordinances to all the world which I doe by my Miniſters: A Prophet ſhall the Lord your God raiſe up to you, like me, ſaith Moſes, and him ſhall you heare: according to which promiſe, I ſit alwayes in the viſible Church teaching the minde of God; as I thus ſit ready to teach, Suffer little children to come to me, for to ſuch belogeth the viſible Church: if thus you underſtand the Kingdome of God, and the belonging of Infants thereto, to ſignifie their intereſt to the viſible Church, then, come to me, ſignifieth no more in the direction then ſuffer them to bee received into the viſible Church, which is no more then ſuffer them to be baptized, or hereafter when ye ſhall have commiſſion to baptize all Nations, baptize them: Neither will Mr. Tombes his diſtinction ſerve turne, that thoſe whoſe is the Kingdome of heaven may be baptized, when it appears that the kingdome of heaven belongeth to them, the text is not of theſe but ſuch, that is of ſuch as have no difference p. 37from theſe as far as you can judge in reference to the Kingdome of God, theſe are to be permitted to come to me. Now whereas Mr. Tombes ſaith ſuch, that is ſuch in meekneſſe, that is a liberty not to be allowed in interpreting of Scripture to aſſigne, or rather reſtraine the likeneſſe to humility, whereas our Saviour applieth the likeneſſe only in this, that they were little children, it was not ſimilitudo qualitatum, but ſubjecti ob omnes qualitates, for a ſubject cannot be ſaid to be like another, if any notable diſparity can be found: it is true if a quality be aſſigned wherein they doe agree, that one quality is enough to make them alike though they differ in all other things; but for a man barely to ſay ſuch as he is fit for this or that employment, he that is fit muſt be ſuch with reſpect to his skill, fidelity, and all other conditions requiſite for that employment. Now if any thing were named wherein they were like, it was in that they were little children, now that which they were a like fit for was the Kingdome of God: and if any children can be fit for the Kingdome of God, what unfitneſſe can be found in one more then another by any mortall man? therefore Chriſt ſaith, Suffer all children to come to me, for they are all alike fit for the Kingdome of God, the viſible Church and the inviſible too for ought you know: neither doe I know that the unfitnes of the Infidells childe is in the childe, but in the parent that will not bring it, nor covenant for it that it ſhall be a diſciple of Chriſt, nor undertake to bring it up in the doctrine of the Goſpell; nor is that man that is an Infidell himſelfe fide dignus to be beleeved in that point, but if he will ſell the intereſt of his child to a Chriſtian, I doe not know but that Chriſtian might bring that childe to be baptized as his upon that promiſe, that he will bring him up in the feare of God; I am certaine, notwithſtanding the promiſe was made to Abraham and his ſeed, yet hee that was bought with money might be circumciſed: all children therefore that are brought may be baptized, ſo as they be brought by perſons that have intereſt in them, and in any charitable conſtruction may be credited that they will bring them up Chriſtians: it is ſufficient for us if they be ſuch as unto whom the Kingdome of heaven doth belong, though the Kingdome of God belong not to them, neither can that any way belong to this argument, that Chriſt doth teach men that are of yeares humility from the emblem of a childe, yet one childe cannot be diſtinguiſhed from another (as more or leſſe fit to come to Chriſt) by their humility: for that Mr. Tombes ſaith Baptiſme doth not bring to Chriſt: I ſay, it doth as Chriſt ſitteth in the viſible Church, into which preſence the Miniſters of the Goſpell have commiſſion from Chriſt to admit all Nations, baptize all Nations; as for the kingdome of grace or glory, Miniſters certainly have no power or authority to keepe any out of them, or hinder any from comming to Chriſt by faith.

The ſeventh argument is from Acts 15 32, 33. Acts 18.8. 1 Cor. 1.16.

If the Apoſtles baptized whole houſholds, then Infants, &c. but &c. ergo,

p. 38This argument, ſaith Mr. Tombes, reſts on a ſleight conjecture, that there were Infants in thoſe houſes, and that theſe Infants were baptized: but ſaith he, the words plainly prove under the name of the whole houſe, are underſtood thoſe only that heard the Word and believed. Hence he denieth the conſequence, implying that many whole houſes may be baptized, yet no Infants, becauſe it is poſſible they may be without children: And he further affirmeth, either theſe were without children, or elſe the children were not comprehended under the whole houſe, which he laboureth to prove out of the ſeverall circumſtances of the ſeverall Texts which I ſhall endeavour to examine along with Mr. Tombes, not only as he mentioneth them here in this pag. 20. of his Exercitation, but as in his Ex… men of Mr. Marſhals Sermon, from p. 137. to 142. Mr. Marſhall ſaith, that the Goſpel took place, as the old adminiſtration by taking in thoſe families together. This Mr. Tombes ſtrongly endeavoureth to oppoſe, and endeavours to ſet up an aſſertion oppoſite to that for true: ſaith he, the adminiſtration is quite oppoſite to that of circumciſion: the oppoſition which he fancieth, he feigneth to conſiſt in ſeverall differences: Firſt, that Abrahams family was ſingled out: the males only: whether in the covenant of grace, or not: children, or ſervants: elder or younger: at eight dayes old in the houſe, by the Maſter, or others in his ſtead.

For, his firſt difference was, Abrahams family only ſingled out for circumciſion, that is boldly affirmed, it is plain the promiſe in the ſeed of Abraham was to all the families of the earth: Gen. 12.3. which is rendered by nations, 18.18.22.18. there promiſe is made in the ſeed of Abraham, which in the 3. of Galat. is applied to Chriſt: ſo that Abrahams family is not ſingled out for the bleſſing, it is true, Abrahams family is ſingled out to be the line of Chriſt, according to the fleſh; many families could not have that priviledge, but the priviledge of circumciſion was not reſtrained to Abrahams family, but extended to all the nations of the earth, and was actually afforded to ſo many families as would dwell among them, or deſired to eat the Paſſeover, as I have formerly proved it: it is plain as many as would be, or were partakers of the bleſſing, muſt be circumciſed: but the bleſſing was promiſed in actu ſignato, to all the nations of the earth, though before Chriſt it was in actu exercito performed to no nation but the Jewes, yet many other families beſides Abraham were circumciſed; therefore that difference is not between baptiſme and circumciſion, that circumciſion did belong to Abrahams family alone.

For his ſecond diffence, that males only were circumciſed, I have already ſpoken to that: and the third, wherein all the knot of the queſtion doth conſiſt, what is here affirmed by Mr. Tombes, is but petitio principii: as circumciſion was to be adminiſtred in all the families that would eat the Paſſeover, whether perſons that were circumciſed did belong to the covenant of grace, or not; ſo is baptiſme, there being no man on earth, that can judge of any but himſelf, whether he belong p. 39to the covenant of grace or no: As for the circumciſion of children, ſervants, elder, younger, I know not baptiſme doth make any more difference then circumciſion doth; for that in the houſe, and by the Maſter of the family, or ſome in his ſtead; I ſay, that in Abrahams time, all the publike offices of King and Prieſt, were in Abrahams perſon; Levi was in the loines of Abraham, what hand the Prieſt or the Judge had in the act of circumciſion, the Scripture is ſilent: but certainly, whether it were to be adminiſtred privately or publikely, there muſt be a publike account given of it, for as much as the perſon that was not circumciſed muſt be cut off, which could not be done, but by a publike act; neither do I know a more publike diſpenſation under the Goſpel ſhould inforce a more particular adminiſtration: but the agreement in the laſt circumſtance, is that whereon the argument doth reſt: that is, that whole families were brought to baptiſme under the Goſpel: To which Mr. Tombes ſaith, that it was but contingent to families; that they were baptized, no precept, no propheſie for it: contingent it is, I confeſſe, in reſpect of any cauſes, that any nation, family, or perſon in the world ſhould be baptized, but that nations ſhould be baptized, is not without either precept or propheſie: the Apoſtles are commanded to baptize all nations, the bleſſing is promiſed to all nations in Abraham, and all nations are propheſied to flow to the mountain of Gods Church, Iſai. 2. but we find not infants baptized, nor families baptized in conformity to circumciſion: Mr. Tombes ſaith, that the conformity is not intimated: I ſay, that families were baptized, the conformity ariſeth of it ſelf; But Mr. Tombes deſireth to elude this argument, by ſhewing that actuall faith was firſt required in every perſon before he were baptized; and therefore the Apoſtles did not baptize any, but ſuch as actually did believe, and make profeſſion of their faith; ſo that they did not baptize any family, unleſſe upon particular cognizance of every particular mans faith; this you ſhall ſee how fairly he will prove: as for the examples from John, and before the commiſſion, I know they walked by ſpeciall light, but what, we cannot tell, after they had their commiſſion, certainly they walked by it: The firſt inſtance after the reſurrection, is Acts 2.41. they that gladly received the Word of God were baptized, and why ſhould they not? did ever any deny, that ſuch as received the Word of God ſhould be baptized? and theſe are they, ſaith Mr. Tombes, to whom he ſaid, verſ. 39. the promiſe belongeth to you and to your children, added three thouſand ſouls, yet never a child baptized; men may as well ſay, never a man, or never a woman: from the word ſouls, an Infant may be called a ſoul, as well as men or women; but, ſaith Mr. Tombes, the Text ſaith, thoſe that received the Word were baptized; doth it ſay, their children were not? but Mr. Tombes confeſſeth they were the ſame perſons that gladly received the Word of God, unto whom Peter had ſaid, the promiſe did belong to them and their children, that was the Word they gladly received: And Saint Peter inferreth from this, that p. 40the promiſe did belong to them, that they ſhould therefore be baptized, becauſe the promiſe did belong to them.

Now if this argument from the promiſe was good concerning them, why is it not as good for their children? and if they received the word of the promiſe gladly for themſelves, it is likely if it had been denied them in reſpect of their children, they would ſome of them have had the boldneſſe to have asked it for their children; and ſaid, Peter, you told us of the promiſe, that it belonged to our children to as well as us; and you told us that that was a good reaſon why wee ſhould be baptized, and accordingly we are baptiſed: why ſhould not that be a ground for our children to be baptized alſo? we know no reaſon why that ſhould be a reaſon for us to be baptized and not for them: You tell us the promiſe doth belong to them as well as to us; as for the limitation of as many as the Lord ſhall call, that is to be referred to them that are afarre off, not to us: afarre off, is oppoſed to them that are neare, Epheſians 2, 13. You that were farre off are made nigh by the bloud of Chriſt: farre off, ſignifieth them that are not yet called, nigh, them that are called; to looke on the words in their originall ſenſe, we do not uſe to call them that are nigh already, but them that are afarre off, that they may come nigh: and this appeareth plainly to be the ſenſe; by that here are ſeverall ſubjects of the promiſe, you are the ſubject of the promiſe, and your children and they that are farre off: You are not your children, your children are not you, you nor your children are not afarre off, they that are afarre off muſt be called, that they may be nigh, that ſo the promiſe may belong to you all, that ſo ye may all be baptized. What Mr. Goodwins fancie is, Mr. T. doth not tell us, nor have I ſeen or heard, but cannot be denied that the word ſoules doe comprehend men, women and children; for though there be ſome difference in their bodies, yet they agree all in this that they be ſoules taken for perſons; though for my part, I will not argue from hence, that children were baptized; yet I ſay from hence is clearly evinced, that children have a right and intereſt to baptiſme, becauſe to the promiſe, and that as clearly as any thing can be: for that which is a cauſe producing an effect in one ſubject, will produce the ſame effect in another, poſita cauſa ponitur effectus rationale eſt riſible, is as true in children, as in men; he to whom the promiſe doth belong, may be baptized, is as true in children as in men, if the promiſe doth belong to them both, as the text plainly ſaith it doth; and the pointing of the Greeke text doth plainly declare this to be the meaning of the words: for there is no point between you and your children, but between children and them that are afarre off, to ſhew the promiſe belonged to them and their children in their preſent condition to them that are afarre off after their call: where note that the promiſe is to bee underſtood in the externall or internall conſideration: according to the externall Sacraments have their adminiſtration amongſt men; which tearmes ye have applyed to Jews and circumciſion, Rom. 2.29. He is a Jew p. 41which is one inwardly, and circumciſion is that of the heart in Spirit, and not the Letter, whoſe praiſe is not of men, but of God; the Letter ſaith, God will be the God of Abraham and his ſeed, but the ſpirit ſaith, that he will be ſo to the elect and faithfull: The Letter ſaith, every male ſhall be circumciſed; the Spirit ſaith, that circumciſion is no circumciſion which is outward, but that which is of the heart: the Letter looketh on the family of Abraham, either by generation or by communion; the Spirit on a remnant only, according to the election of grace… the Letter requireth circumciſion or cutteth off, ſome ſay [Goodwins antiq. Ainſworth in locum;] the parent, ſome ſay, the child for the neglect; thus externall performance hath its praiſe or diſpraiſe of men, but that of the Spirit hath its praiſe not of men, but of God: To this latter, only faith and repentance is required, or rather both; circumciſion of the heart, and baptiſme of the heart, are nothing elſe but faith and repentance which God can judge, and praiſe not man; and thus the promiſe, according to the Letter, did belong to thoſe Jews, to whom Peter ſpake, even before their effectuall call; and this Peter urgeth to them as a motive to move them to be baptized: as if he ſhould have ſaid, upon this ground ye were circumciſed, and now upon the ſame ground ye may be baptized; it is true, we are not only Miniſters of the Letter, but of the Spirit, and therefore we preach faith and repentance as requiſite to your baptiſme of the Spirit; but you muſt give account of that to God, and not to us, we can take no account of it, we are not Lords and Judges of your faith, we preach all the duties that belong to the inward man, but adminiſter ſacraments and guide our charity towards our brethren by outward rules, it muſt ſatisfie us: if you will come and claim your intereſt to the promiſe, both for your ſelves and your children, we muſt baptize you and your children; we will teach what account ye muſt make to God of your faith and repentance, how you muſt bring up your children in the feare of God, but we can take account of none of theſe things. The next place of Scripture which he taketh in to this confutation, is Acts 8.12. by which he proveth that the Apoſtles did not take in whole families at once, becauſe the whole City of Samaria: we prove a perſonall account of all to be baptized, was not required, becauſe they were taken in by whole families in the Apoſtles time, and Mr. Tombes confuſeth this, by ſaying, they were taken in by whole cities; I like ſuch confutations. Next, out of Acts 8.38. and 9.18. he proveth that the Eunuch and Paul; ſingle perſons were baptized; brave arguments, therefore families were not baptized, the Apoſtles had a commiſſion to baptize all nations, and accordingly they performed their commiſſion with all expedition, taking in families, cities, nations, ſingle perſons, refuſing none that would enter themſelves in the School of Chriſt: Chriſt is not like a Grammar-ſchool-maſter, that will receive no ſchollers, unleſſe they be entred before; he teacheth from the teat to the grave, from the ABC, to perfection; the next is of Cornelius, his houſhold was p. 42baptized, as may be gathered out of Acts 11.14. ſaith Mr. Tombes, though I conceive he miſtaketh the place: the baptiſme of Cornelius family is 10.48. But this houſhold was not an ordinary houſhold, but a garriſon of Souldiers, what matter is there in that; what did Peter cauſe them to be baptized, for feare, becauſe they were Souldiers, God told Cornelius before Peter came, that he ſhould tell them words by which he and all his houſhold ſhall be ſaved? Mr. Tombes inferreth that all Cornelius houſhold were ſaved: good Charity, but bad Logick; that becauſe there was vertue in the word to ſave him and all his houſhold, therefore all his houſhold were ſaved: in the 1 Cor. 1.16. Paul baptized the houſhold of Stephanus, but ſaith Mr. Tombs in 16.15. the houſhold of Stephanus is addicted to the Miniſtery of the Saints; what is this to the purpoſe? did ever any man ſay that thoſe that were baptized ſhould never after be good for any thing? he ſaith, ſome things of Criſpus and others, that the houſhold is underſtood for them that beleeve in the houſe; but comming to Lydia, he hath nothing to ſay from any circumſtance of that text, to prove that any of Lydias houſe did beleeve but herſelfe, but ſaith it muſt be interpreted by other places where they expreſſe baptizing whole houſholds, they expreſſe beleeving and receiving the word by the whole houſhold: ſtrange that one hiſtory ſhall be expounded by another, becauſe one houſhold received the word and beleeved, therefore another houſhold that was baptized, did likewiſe beleeve: an hiſtory can but inferre that ſome that did beleeve were baptized: but ſaith Mr. Tombes, the frequent uſe of the word houſhold for growne men in the houſe, Mat. 10.13. if the houſe be worthy, certainly what portion may be aimed at, as for whoſe ſake the houſe is ſaid to bee worthy of the Apoſtles abode in it is uncertaine; the houſe there is underſtood of all, little and great, your peace is no more, but your prayers: now firſt the worthineſſe may be found in the Maſter of the family alone, and the Apoſtles may pray for the whole family little and great.

But now Mr. Tombes will fall upon ſome argument, to prove that the Apoſtles did not take in familes, for then ſaith he, if it be true that the preſident bee an houſhold, I demand whether we muſt baptize wife and ſervants becauſe they profeſſe the faith, or becauſe they be of the houſhold? if becauſe of the houſhold whether profeſſing faith or not, then an unbeleeving wife or ſervant ſhould bee baptized becauſe they are of the houſhold; unleſſe it be ſuppoſed that the husband or maſter being a beleever, the wife or ſervant cannot be an unbeleever; the contrary ſaith he appeareth: and thus Mr. Tombs hath done his doe, and then cryeth abſurd: but where lyeth the force of his inferences, and the abſurdity I cannot tell; Mr. Marſhall and Mr. Blake ſay, whole houſholds were taken in; but it follows all houſholds muſt come in; all or none, all that is inferred out of that, is, that the Goſpell may be received by a family: and maſter of the family may tender all his family to baptiſme, & the commiſſioner to baptize all the world, need enquire p. 43no further into the profeſſion of the family, but may take the teſtimony of the Maſter for the whole family; for you change a terme, and ſay, if a wife or a ſervant, make not profeſſion of faith (you minde to the Miniſter) then an unbeleever may be baptized, and ſo he may, though they ſhould make profeſſion of faith: but you throughout your whole Diſcourſe, make faith, and profeſſion of faith all one, more Anabaptiſtico, for lay that miſtake aſide which you muſt doe, and all Anabaptiſts mouthes are ſtopt; for it is one thing to beleeve, and another to make profeſſion of faith: you much talke of this houſhold, and that houſhold beleeving; but ſhew me any but the Eunuch that made any profeſſion of faith before baptiſme, in which caſe Philip did not teach him to confeſſe his faith, but to beleeve only: it cannot be denyed, that the doctrin of faith ought to be taught to men of yeares, and that not as a preparation to baptiſme only, but for that the doctrine of faith is neceſſary to all actions; whatſoever is not of faith is ſinne: that which we argue from receiving of families, and from the Apoſtles commiſſion to baptize Nations, is that Nations may make Lawes for their whole Nations to be baptized; and if the major part of a Nation doe according to their duty receive baptiſme, and undertake for the whole Nation to ſubmit themſelves to become ſchollers of Chriſt, they may juſtly compell by any penalty to joyne with them in the externall worſhip of God, Deum eſſe & colendum, is the Law of Nature: all Nations have ever agreed to ſerve ſome God, without which no humane ſociety can be preſerved: all ſocieties are united by a Covenant confirmed by an oath in the name of ſome God, and doe agree upon ſome publike worſhip of their God: but may not a Chriſtian Nation agree upon the ſervice of God in Chriſt? may they not enrole themſelves the Diſciples of Chriſt, and ſubmit to the publike worſhip of God, of which baptiſme is the firſt? this therefore is it which is drawne from the commiſſion directed to the Diſciples for the baptizing of Nations, that Nations may act as Nations, and families as families; that is, that the more organicall parts muſt act for the reſidue, the Magiſtrates for the Nation, the Maſter of the family for the family; otherwiſe it cannot be ſaid to be the act of the Nation, or of the family, though a poſt factum may be hiſtorically related to overſpread a Nation that is done without any Nationall conſent to ſhew the univerſality of a ſpreading evill: yet where a duty is charged upon a Nation, it cannot be orderly received without a Nationall conſent: and that of the Gaolers houſhold doth appeare to be acted by his conſent, as the text is plaine, Act. 16.32. Paul preached to all in the houſe, but in 33. it is ſaid the the Gaoler was baptized and all his: as if the text ſhould have ſaid, there were divers in the houſe that heard the word that the Gaoler had nothing to doe with, but thoſe that were his he would preſent to Paul to be baptized. Now whereas in 34. verſe it is urged by Mr. Tombes that he rejoyced beleeving in God with all his houſe: I confeſſe Paſſor and others render foreign ſo; yet it is an adverbe of place, and can reaſonably ſignifie no p. 44more but the place where he rejoyced; beſides if foreign ſhould ſignifie with all in the houſe, it muſt ſignifie more then were baptized, becauſe none were baptized but his, and if under the name of his, then he had an intereſt in preſenting them. Now man can have no more intereſt in any then in his children, they are his in a more eſpeciall manner; ſo that if he had any children, it is apparent they were baptized, or elſe they were none of his, all his were baptized: And whereas Mr. Tombes ſaith, all the houſhold beleeved, or all that were baptized beleeved; it is plaine that the Maſter of the houſe onelyonly is ſaid to beleeve, for the participle foreign is referred to the nominative caſe, the adverbe that is foreign though it ſhould be tranſlated with all his houſe, is to be referred to the verbe, which is foreign rejoyced, they rejoyced to ſee their maſter or father ſo merry: if beleeving had been referred to all the houſe, it muſt have been foreign domo credente with his houſe beleeving; whereas it is now to be rendred, hee beleeving rejoyced with all his houſhold, none is ſaid to beleeye but himſelfe as in Lydias caſe, is likewiſe plaine: from whence it will appeare that a beleeving maſter may preſent his ſervant and children to baptiſme, though it doth not follow that a beleeving maſter may or will preſent thoſe of his ſervants or children, that are adult or of yeares without their conſent, yet he may be his authority require them to it as an externall duty; he cannot compell them to any duty, or reſtraine them from any vice without their conſent, yet he may correct them, and incline their will to any outward duty by his authority, and having wrought upon them …o conſent and ſubmit, the commiſſioner may baptize them that come ſo preſen…ed: the maſter of a family is a King, a Prophet, and a Prieſt, if by any of theſe offices he can prevaile with his houſhold, he may bring them to the performance of their duties: Now baptizing as a duty and precept lyeth on the Miniſter antecedenter to the faith of the baptized; and is at leaſt annexed to doctrine, and not to faith, they muſt teach and baptize all Nations: now it is plaine they muſt teach as well them that beleeve not, as them that beleeve; againe baptizing is modus decandi, a manner of teaching; as I have ſaid, and ſhall further be made appeare upon occaſion. Now whereas Mr. Tombes further ſaith, that then it will follow that the whole houſhold muſt neceſſarily beleeve if the Maſter doth, and proveth that ſome time it falleth out otherwiſe: I ſay, that though it bee the maſter or husbands duty to move his family, yet he cannot alwaies prevaile; and ſpeciall direction concerning the wife is given to ſuffer her in regard of the bond of Matrimony and that under ſome limited and reſtrained tearms in hope of her converſion; yet nothing is ſaid concerning ſervants but that he may either force them or be rid of them if they continue Infidels in that ſenſe, that is refuſe to liſt themſelves among Diſciples; the publike worſhip of ſome God being the bound of all humane ſociety, 101. Pſ. 6. He that walketh in a perfect way, he ſhall ſerve me: he that keepeth any ſervant that will not be baptized, is not a good Chriſtian; p. 45it is true, all men of diſcretion ought to conſent to every duty; but baptiſme is a duty without conſent, as all other precepts are, it is pactum impoſitum, as before; and ſo I come to follow his arguments, lapping up two or three of them, becauſe he maketh ſleight of the arguments, we ſhall take occaſion to ſhew the weakneſſe of ſome of his anſwers, and where the arguments be weak, the weakneſſe is his, to bring them in.

The firſt argument of this ſort, is taken from the generall promiſes to the godly and their ſeed, this hath already been handled how they conclude for baptiſme he citeth, Exod. 20.6. Pſal. 112.2. he ſaith they are for the moſt part concerning temporall things, then ſpirituall alſo, as confeſſed, generall and indefinite; if generall and indefinite it muſt be ſo by reaſon of the neceſſity of the matter, otherwiſe indefinite would be particular; election doth not ſtop children, they are elect when children, or never; theſe promiſes are with condition of faith and repentance, therefore not belonging to this place, ſaith Mr. Tombes. Well, then he was too blame to bring it.

2. Iſai. 49.22. it is foretold, that Gentiles ſhould bring their children in their armes, therefore the Prophets foreſaw the baptiſme of Infants: It is the happineſſe of the beſt arguments to have the weakeſt anſwers; they might be brought to other ends, which he proveth from Mat. 19.15. but were thoſe in that place brought to the Church according to the propheſie? then Chriſt muſt needs be underſtood as ſitting in the Church, and ſuffer them to come to me, muſt be; admit them into the Church, as I have ſaid: it is true, that men which come to the Church, come for other ends then to be baptized, but if baptiſme be the door of the Church, as it is the ſacramentall door of the viſible Church, nemine contradi…ente, beſides Independents, then whatſoever be their buſineſſe, they did come in by the door of baptiſme: And whereas Mr. Tombes ſaith, that was an analogie and was performed by the perſwaſions in which the Gentiles did perſwade their children to imbrace Chriſt: he formerly affirmeth little ones in armes are not to be baptized, becauſe not capable of inſtructions, and muſt bringing of little ones in armes, be interpreted by inſtructions? it is true that Junius doth ſay, cum vexill… Evangelii quod eſt potentia Dei ad ſalutem, haec omnia alleg…ric… dicuntur de amplitudine regni Chriſti ſpiritualis; but he doth not ſay, that bringing of children in armes ſhould be underſtood of grown children, capable of inſtruction, when it may be literally underſtood.

Laſtly, I ſhall only mention that argument, taken out of Epheſ. 5.26. where it is ſaid, Chriſt cleanſed his Church with waſhing of water through the Word: from whence it is argued, that the Church is waſhed with water of baptiſme, or not partaker of the waſhing by the blood of Chriſt. To which Mr. Tombes maketh this anſwer: that if this argument be of force, the thief repenting on the croſſe, Infants, catechumeni, martyrs, and others, dying without baptiſme, p. 46are excluded out of the Church, and the benefit of Chriſt; he ſhould have ſaid, if none of theſe were capable of baptiſme, then were they excluded from the benefit of Chriſts death, where God doth prevent any by death, the party ſo taken away by God, is not deprived of the benefit of Chriſts death; God is not tied to ſacraments ſo, as that he cannot fave without them, though contempt of ſacraments be ſinfull and damnable.

Mr. Tombes his ſecond argument is, That which agreeth not with the Lords inſtitution of baptiſme, is deſervedly doubtfull, but the right of Infants baptiſme agreeth not with the Lords inſtitution of baptiſme, Ergo.

I deny the minor, Mr. Tombes proveth, becauſe Infants cannot be Diſciples of Chriſt; I ſay they may. Mr. Tombes confeſſeth Infants may be ſanctified, but it cannot be made known to us, that is not Mr. Tombes his argument, that it muſt be known to us that they are ſanctified, neither from the inſtitution doth it appeare that they muſt be Diſciples before they are baptized, much leſſe that it muſt appear: The commiſſion to the Apoſtles, and from them to all the Miniſters of the Word to the end of the world, is to make Diſciples of all nations, baptizing and teaching them what Chriſt ſhall command. The parties to be baptized, are all nations, without any reſtriction at all; their commiſſion is, to baptize all nations, and this in reference to that nationall covenant that then was among the Jews, only the publike worſhip was limited to the Temple then, now to no place, make Diſciples, is no limitation of perſons: Their commiſſion was to make all nations Diſciples, which they were to execute, pro viribus, to the uttermoſt of their power; the conjunction of baptiſme, and teaching, with making Diſciples, was not with reſpect to any perſonall reſtriction, but it is conjunctio mediorum ad finem, make all nations Diſciples; the meaning is, by baptiſme and teaching: Now, the ſetting down of theſe words, making Diſciples; firſt is, becauſe that was the end of their commiſſion firſt, in intention, and muſt firſt be propoſed: as in all operations is neceſſary, as if a man will have an houſe built, a city conquered, an enemy taken; the firſt thing that he propoſeth, is the thing that he will have done, and after directeth, or conſulteth about the means, though they muſt uſe the means before they get the end, I have already ſpoken to this, and ſhall more fully in my arguments that I intend for childrens baptiſine: For, that which Maſter Tombes ſaith, then the children of Infidels might be baptized, I have already ſpoken of, that it is not incapacity of the childe that diſableth him from baptiſme, it is the fault of the parent that will not bring his childe, nor will undertake to bring up his childe in Chriſtian doctrine; (nor is he that is an Infidell, herein to be believed) but in Chriſt, Jewes and Gentiles are all one, and a childe as capable of Chriſtian Religion, (according to his education) though his father be an Heathen, as if a Chriſtian; the reaſon why the ſeed of Abraham had a priviledge, was, the Ordinances were only in his houſe, as many as came to have benefit p. 47of the Ordinances, were circumciſed, though not of Abrahams ſeed; they that were bought with money, or ſojourned in Abrahams houſe, nay, though they were reckoned as a family diſtinct from Abrahams, and the males reckoned not as Abrahams males, but their own males; yet, if they deſired to eate the Paſſeover, their males muſt be circumciſed, Exod. 12.48. Thoſe that joyn themſelves to the Ordinances, and claim their intereſt in baptiſime, and relation in Chriſt, to be his Diſciples, they muſt be baptized, and their families, and as many as they can undertake for, to bring to the outward means, if they can undertake for whole nations, the commiſſioners may not refuſe them: they muſt be ſuffered to come, if any will undertake to bring them, though children. Now, that fathers by undertaking to bring their children to hearing and to learning, what is the way of God, do no more then their dutie, and what they can readily perform, and do bring their children to Church, and take order for their catechizing, which (were the parents as carefull as they ought) were a great means to promote Religion and Piety among men, and is often required in the Scripture from the father. That is, by this Anabaptiſticall tenet laid only upon the Miniſter, which turneth into a great incumbrance, and neglect of the inſtruction of the people, whereby many have been enforced to fall into that inexcuſable error that all men have the office of a Miniſter, if baptized themſelves, and have gifts, ſuch as the people ſhall approve of: But, grant that the nations muſt be made Diſciples, before they muſt be baptized, and that all nations muſt believe before Diſciples? doth it follow, that every party muſt believe that is baptized, quod convenit parti, quapars convenit toti gratia iſtius partis, that which agreeth to any part, agreeth to the whole, by reaſon of the part; but not to every part? the whole man ſeeth with his eye (I ſpeak de actu videndi) but not with any other member, but having gotten the knowledge by the eye, the ſoul implieth other members more imperato, to do their office: So the Magiſtrates that are not only the ſenſe, but the underſtanding of the nations believing may be baptized, and by the duty of their place, require others to be baptized alſo: Non quicquid totius etiam partis eſt, in totis integrantibus, a man muſt ſee before he go into the river to be waſhed, he ſeeth with his eye, not with his foot; but when he is waſhed, his foot may be waſhed alſo: the nation believeth by the Magiſtrate by whoſe authority the whole nation is put to ſchool to Chriſt, and is baptized, which is an externall duty, and may be required by the Magiſtrate: as for faith, we have no Lords of faith, here every man muſt give an account of his faith to the Lord of faith, Jeſus Chriſt, upon his day. In the mean time, it is a moſt inſolent arrogancy, and contrary to Scripture, for any man to judge of anothers faith. Saint Paul ſaith, not as having dominion over your faith, but as helpers of your joy: 2 Cor. 1.24. and Saint Peter, not as Lords over the flock: if therefore they are not Lords, how come they to be Judges? what do Lordſhip conſiſt in a name, or in judicature? names p. 48be but weake and childiſh apprehenſions of things, natures only yeeld diſtinct knowledge: Moſes could no ſooner take upon him to judge of wrong done among brethren, but preſently they aske, Who made him a Prince, a Lord, a Judge, intimating that judgement belongeth to a Lord: Wee doe much declaime againſt Lordſhip and dominion over other mens conſciences and faith, yet not only Miniſters, but every man will take upon him to judge without ſcruple, this man hath faith, and that man hath none: it is true, charity doth permit men privatly to approve, but not condemne the faith of another: Baptiſme is an externall duty, ſuch as man can take notice of whether done or not: and if a man be called to an account whether he hath baptized ſuch a perſon or not, or whether he went or carried an Infant to be baptized, who baptized him? he may be able to prove theſe things by humane teſtimony, and therefore they are of humane cognizance: but who hath faith, and who not, no man breathing can give any teſtimony thereto, and therefore man cannot judge: But ſome man will ſay, the foot doth not ſee, becauſe not capable for want of organs; but every man is capable of faith, that is not the queſtion, whether all are capable of faith, I mean men of all conditions; but whether faith be of humane cognizance, neither is that argument of any force that faith is neceſſary to make Baptiſme of any efficacie, therefore untill the Miniſters are acquainted that the perſons to be baptized have faith, they may not baptize them by the ſame rule, becauſe no humane action can be well done without faith, no humane action can be required of any man by the Civill Magiſtrate, & ſo at one blow al humane ſociety is deſtroied; but man muſt require all duties of men that they can judge of leaving the inner part of it to the judgement of God, who only can judge the heart: for as the neglect of a duty is ſinful, ſo no ſin ſo great as to enter upon the Prerogatives of God, who only can judge the heart, ſo that whatſoever is pretended from any ſpeech of beleeving before Baptiſme: yet no one place where the profeſſion of faith is required of the perſon to be baptized.