Antipædobaptism, or no plain nor obscure scripture-proof of infants baptism, or church-membership, being the first part of the full review of the dispute about infant-baptism: containing an ample disquisition of the ingrassing, Rom. II. 17. the promise, Acts 2. 39. the holinesse of children, I Cor. 7.14. Whereby the expositions of those texts, and arguings thence for infant-baptism by Mr. Stephen Marshall, Mr. John Geere, Mr. Richard Baxter, Mr. Thomas Cobbet, Mr. Thomas Blake, Mr. Josiah Church; and the arguments of Mr. Nathaniel Stephens for the convertiblity of a word of promise and command, are fully refuted. By John Tombes, B.D.

SECT. XXXIII.

My speech, that it is not enough for Mr. B. to overthrow my sense except he prove his own, is vindicated.

MR. B. tels us he will proceed to answer all that ever he could know I have brought against his Exposition of this text. And 1. he takes notice that I say, if he do overthrow my sense and prove not his own, it is nothing: for possibly neither of us may be in the right. And the answers thus, 1. I wonder not that he seeth a pos∣sibility or his own erring, but rather that he seeth not that he cer∣tainly erreth. 2. I have fully proved my exposition already. Is it not proof enough that the Scripture near six hundred times useth the word in my sense, and never in his sense. 3. When there is but these three senses urged by any of understanding, I think the over∣throw of his third is the establishing of one of the former; and if either of them stand his cause must fall. For the other sense of the word [holy] which is for qualitative real holiness makes against him more than mine. And I say again, I had rather say as they that would have it a holiness of separation such as certainly saveth, than as Mr. T. that it is onely to be no bastards. For I know no one Scri∣pture against their judgement that shall affirm, that all infants of believers so dying are certainly saved: nor any argument but only this, that then the children of the faithfull that prove wicked, do fall away from grace. And were I necessitated to the one (as I am not) I had rather believe that such grace as consisteth not in personall qualificati∣ons, but is meerly relative grounded on the Covenant, and having only the parents faith for its condition, I say, that such grace may be lost, when they come to age; then to believe, Mr. T. that God hath denied all infants in the world to be so much as members of the vi∣sible Church.

For I see twenty times more may be said against this o∣pinion of his than the other.

To which I reply. It is some ease to my spirit under the heavy

load of M. Bs. injurious censures of me, that he doth not make me so arrogant as not to imagine it possible for me to erre, nor doth it dis∣quiet me that he wonders that I see not that I certainly do erre, being acquainted with the vanity of his wonderments, who often wonders at that of which the reason is obvious. That his exposition is not proved is shewed by answering his arguments. That he saith, there are but those three senses of real, federal, matrimonial holiness ur∣ged by any of understanding, shewes his ignorance. For to omit that of Augustine (a man sure of some understanding) refuted by Chami∣er Paustr. Cath. tom. 4. lib. 5. cap. 10. Sect. 67. of a ceremo∣nial holiness, Hugo Grotius (no babe) annot. in 1 Cor. 7. 14. goes another way from all the three senses Mr. B. sets down, and allegeth Tertullian and Hierom for him, that the unbelieving husband is sanctifyed as a lawful husband to his wife a believer, and so she need not depart from him. For otherwise if the believer depart the chil∣dren would be unclean, that is, would be heathen infidels called un∣clean Act. 10. there being none to teach them the Christian faith, but now, that is, the believer staying, the children are holy, that is, be∣come Christians, or as Tertullian candidati fidei inquirers into the faith and learners of it, the Lord helping the endeavours of the better part in the education of them. And so this text is not understood of the infants in their infancy, to which Mr. B. and others appropriate the word [children], nor the holiness derived from the Covenant, but from the education of the children, nor the holiness a holiness of meer relation without any qualification in the person, but a holiness of qua∣lity from the good disposition of the person. And this exposition is confirmed from v. 16. in which a like reason is urged from the pos∣sibility of saving the unbelieving yoke-fellow if they continue together as of saving their children v. 14. And truely this exposition would be probable, were it not that the words [else were] appear to note a plain proof in a Logical way of the sanctifying of the unbeliever to the yoke∣fellow, not a Rhetorical motive to perswade them to live together, and the scope of the speech there is to resolve the doubt and settle the judgement, not to move the affections. And whereas Mr. B. saies that the first sense of qualitative real holiness which certainly saves, makes more against mine than his, if he means my opinion of An∣ti-paedo baptism sure it is very unlikely. For if it were granted as Mr Thomas Goodwin (the only man that I have found following that sense) would have it, that the Apostle means it thus; if it were not for the faith of the believer the children would be unbelievers

(which proposition is not true) but now, that is by reason of the faith of the one party they are many of them elect and in the covenant of saving grace, (which unless warily understood is not true) though many are not, yet would not it serve turn to prove the right to baptism of any much less of all the infants of believers. For

1. Were it granted that all much less if it be granted onely that some infants of believers are elect, and have the promise of saving real ho∣liness, yet unless they have that holiness in infancy and it appears to the baptizer by their manifestation of it or Gods special revelation, that they have it and so are believers he is not appointed to baptize them, and therefore were that sense granted (which is not) yet it would not make against my opinion, that infants are not to be baptized accor∣ding to ordinary rule. Nor is the conceit of M. T. Good. in his Ep. before Mr. Cottons Dialogue of infant-baptism of any weight, chat sith a great part of the infants of believers dy in infancy and they are the most pure part of the Church, God would not have them come in and go out of the world without some visible token of his favour, and therefore they should be baptized. For 1. This is but a reason of man, which is not to be a rule to us in Gods ordinances without his own appointment. 2. The like reason might be framed concerning still-born or infants dying within an hour, or less after their birth, they should be bapti∣zed, and then either ministers must be still in the way to do it, or Pa∣pists care is commendable that Midwives baptize, and however pri∣vate baptism will be necessary. 3. It is but a meer dictate without proof that God would have them partake of a visible token of his fa∣vour. To the contrary may be alleged, that all infants till Abra∣hams time were without such a visible token, from Abrahams time all the females, and males deceasing afore the eight day; that its not in reason necessary they should have a visible token of Gods favor, who shew no visible token of their regard of God. 4. If it were granted (which is not) that God would have them partake of a visible token of his favour, yet that it must be baptism and not laying on of hands, which Christ used cannot be proved. So that were Mr. Tho. Good∣wins sense granted, yet it would not make against me as Mr. B. saith. Yea Mr. Robert Baily in the first part of his disswasive chap. 6. pag. 119. conceived that the opinion of Mr. Thomas Goodwin de∣nying the common sense of federal holiness not qualitative and sa∣ving tends to overthrow infant-baptism, of which he gives his reason in that plaee.

2. How uncertain or false Mr. Thomas Goodwins hypotheses are

by which he would prove infant-baptism, and how insufficient to that end hath been, though briefly, yet sufficiently touched in my Apology Sect. 5. pag. 19. But yet Mr. B. had rather embrace that opinion than mine, and he gives his reason;

1. Because he knowes no one Scripture against their Judgement, that shall affirm all infants of believer so dying are certainly sa∣ved.

To which I answer; Nor do I know any Scripture for it: but I think notwithstanding Augustines and other Antients opinions from Rom. 5. 12. John 3. 5. about original sin and necessity of water∣baptism to all infants for their entering into the Kingdom of God, yet the Scripture is silent in this point, whether they are all certainly saved that dy in infancy either children of believers or unbelievers. But why he should for this reason rather embrace the opinion of qualitative real saving holiness to be meant, 1 Cor. 7. 14. than mine of matri∣monial I see not, except his prejudice against my exposition and judge∣ment.

2. Saith Mr. B. Nor any argument, but onely this, that then the children of the faithful that prove wicked do fall away from grace.

Answ. There are many arguments against the opinion of inter∣preting 1 Cor. 7. 14. of qualitative real saving holiness of believers infants by reason of the parents faith besides that which Mr. B. produ∣duceth, though he see them not. As

First, That the parents faith by that exposition is made a cause, or motive, or reason of a childs being elect, or sanctified, or in the cove∣nant of grace, or in Mr. Bs. phrase these are grounded on the parents faith, which I conceive not agreeing with the Apostles determination even concerning the Children of Abraham and Isaac, Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18. denying every believers child to be a child of the promise, referring election of some and hardning of others even of Abraham and Isaac's house meerly to Gods will, as the cause, motive or reason of it.

2. That the children are holy with such a holiness for the parents faith will, I presum, be only judged of such parents as have true reall faith, it being absurd, that the child should be judged to have re∣al saving holiness for or by the parents faith who hath none himself. But if it be meant only of such that their children are all, or for the most part, holy with a real qualitative saving holiness, then the incon∣veniences follow on this opinion which follow on Mr. Bs. sense men∣tioned in my Antidote pag. 15. and are to be considered here∣after.

3. The Apostle had resolved them of the lawfulnes of their continuing together from a thing meerly impertinent to the thing to be proved. For what connexion is there between the lawfulness of the parents being to∣gether, and the childs real holiness? Is it unlawful for parents to live together, if they knew all or any of their children would be ungodly or reprobates? or were it any whit the more lawful for fornicators to live together if they knew all or any of their bastards should be godly and be saved?

4. The principal argument against that opinion is, that then this proposition should be included in the Apostles consequence: none of the Children of those parents whereof neither is a believer are holy with a saving real qualitative holiness, but all unclean, that is repro∣bates and ungodly, contrary to the grace of God to the children of Gentile Idolaters, and to the Article of the Creed about the Catholike Church, and would indeed overthrow the preaching of the Gospel to any but believers children. But let us see how Mr. B. endevours to avoid the only a••gument he knew, to wit, that then there would be a falling from grace of many children of believers, who prove wic∣ked. He denies not but that from the opinion of understanding 1 Cor. 7. 14. of a holiness of separation which certainly saves, and affirming it to be meant of the infants of believers, it will follow that some in∣fants may fall from grace: in which me thinks he might have observ∣ed that these are inconsistent suppositions to suppose that they have that holiness of separation which certainly saves, and yet that they fall from grace. But he tells us that he had rather believe that such grace as consisteth not in personal qualifications, but is meerly relative grounded on the Covenant, and having only the parents faith for its condition may be lost when they come to age, than to believe with Mr. T. that God hath denyed all infants in the world to be so much as members of the visible Church. Whereto I reply: If he should be∣lieve the exposition to which he rather inclines than mine, and his gran∣ted suppositions, he should believe not only meerly relative Grace, but a qualitative, real, saving holiness, yea which certainly saves may be lost, and therefore this evasion would not help to avoid the absurdity that follows on that opinion if Mr B. should imbrace it. But I observe sundry strange conceits in Mr. B.

1. That he imagines a meerly relative grace without personal qua∣lification grounded on the Covenant, having only the parents faith for its condition, which is to me a meer figment.

2. That this meer relative holiness without personal qualification

would save certainly infants dying in infancy, and so an unclean thing which hath no personal qualification of inherent holiness may enter into heaven.

3. That he is not utterly averse from believing such grace may be lost, which seems either to imply a contradiction, that the grace that saves certainly may be lost, or else that grace which would certainly save the infants if they did die infants may be lost if they live: which if true I see not how God will be acquitted from change in his cove∣nant, if not in his purpose, and me thinks every believing parent should be bound out of love to his childs soul to pray to God to take away his child in infancy, and not to hazard its salvation by prolong∣ing its life.

4. He conceives my denying infants visible Church-membership doth exclude infants from salvation: and yet imagines not that the want of holiness of personal qualification doth so: which is as much as to say, a person really unsanctifyed may be saved, but a person not seeming to men to be of the invisible Church in a judgement of proba∣bility (as he vainly describes visible Church-membership) may not. I haved shewed what may be said against that opinion, have examined what is said against mine: I perceive Mr. Bs. prejudice swaies him much, and indeed blinds him that he cannot or will not consider the evidence of what I bring for my opinion, nor the futility of his own reasoning. But I pass on.