More proofs of infants church-membership and consequently their right to baptism, or, A second…

Mr. Tombs his second Letter. Sir, I confess Infants were by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people, in that estate of the Jewish Pedagogy (not by any promise or precept) visible Church-members, that is, of the Congregation of Israel. I do not confess that there was any Law or Ordinance determining it should be so, but only a fact of God, which is a transeunt thing, and I think it were a foolish undertaking for me to prove the repeal of a fact. Wherefore still I press you that you would show me where that Law, Ordinance, Statute or Decree of God is that is repealable, that is, which may in congruous sense be either by a later act said to be repealed, or else to be established as a law for ever. This I never found in your books, nor do I conceive that law is implied in any thing I grant; and therefore I yet pray you to set me down the particular Text or Texts of Holy Scripture where that Law is. Which need not hinder you from opposing the Quakers ⟨p. 9⟩(in which I have not and hope shall not be wanting) of whom I think that you are misinformed that they are Anabaptists, I think there are very few of them that were ever baptised, and have good evidence that they have been formerly Seekers, as you call them. And I think you do unjustly impute the direful consequences you speak of to the denial of Infant Baptism, and to the practice of adult Baptism, and that as your self are deceived so you mislead others. I yet expect your Texts, knowing none in any of your Books that mention that law of Infants visible Church-membership which you assert either explicitly or implicitly, and am Bewdly, April 4. 1655. yours as is meet, John Tombs.

Mr. Tombes his second Letter. Sir, I confess Infants were by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people, in that estate of the Jewish Paedagogy (not by any promise or precept) visible Church-members, that is, of the Congregation of Israel. I do not confess that there was any Law or Ordinance determining it should be so, but only a fact of God, which is a transeunt thing, and I think it were a foolish undertaking for me to prove the repeal of a fact. Wherefore still I press you that you would shew me where that Law, Ordinance, Statute or Decree of God is that is repealable, that is, which may in congruous sence be either by a later act said to be repealed, or else to be established as a law for ever. This I never found in your books, nor do I conceive that law is implied in any thing I grant; and therefore I yet pray you to set me down the particular Text or Texts of Holy Scripture where that Law is. Which need not hinder you from opposing the Quakers