be his only thriving way to seâ— out Emissaries privily like the pestilence in darkness to infâ— the ignorant and fill all corners of three Nations with his boâ— as Arrius did the Empire with his which are so subtilly aâ— laborately contrived that he hath gained a repute by the câ—â—sent of all to be accounted with Caius Curio ingâ—niosâ—ssime quam The reason why I desired a further and that a treatable aâ— deliberate engagement with him was because I was hurried tâ— that extemporal discourse through importunity which is not whit the lesse true because he believes it not Some of the people were so far wrought upon with his impostures and delusions that they were disposed for dipping others told us we were not faithfull Pastors if we would not resist the entrance of such wolves But in very deed the provocation to that sudden debate was through a stratagem of his partakers who triumphed and insulted upon our hearers vaunting as Marcion and his followers did that their Champians durst not shew their faces whilest Mr. Tombes was in town whereupon I was assaulted with one messenger after another who rather enforced then perswaded me to be present at Mr. Bonner's debatement and his My first salute was when I entred the Town from a friend of his sent as he said to know whether I would dispute with Mr. Tombes I returned I was not then provided but if he gave the challenge and withal a competent time I would God willing enter the lists And for his being advertised before that if he came to bergaveny I would oppose him I know not whether it be truâ— no however I am sure it had no ground from me who neither knew nor thought of his coming thither nor had any time to countermine such contingencies as groaning under two burdens able to break a back of steele Nor is it likely I would have begun with him who have not given the least affront to other Anabaptists and Dippers who for these several years preach publickly there at least once a month and have a private chamber where they meet for breaking of bread once a week though I have received abuses causelesly from the sharp rasor of some of their tongues beyond barbarity As for the speech of him who said Mr. Tombes had answered nothing I also say the relation of the Dispute with his Answer and my Reply will discover the true Crisis yet me thinks rayling speeches are a bad Omen and presages ill A man of his 〈…〉 retended gravity and wisedome might have spared those Epi 〈…〉 s of impudent and brasen-faced knowing that of Austin a 〈…〉 st Petilian to be true nec malam conscientiam sanat praeconium 〈…〉 antis nec bonam vulnerat conviciantis opprobrium neither doth 〈…〉 commendation of the praiser heale an evill conscience nor 〈◊〉 reproach of a reviler wound a good â—r Baxter his worth is too great to be impeached which was 〈…〉 cause of my vindication behind his back especially by one 〈…〉 o had been found tripping in that kind before And I believe 〈◊〉 may justly say and not before that he hath answered all Mr. â—â—xter hath against him when Porphyry and Julian shall justly say they have ansvered Cyril Arrius Athanasius The Jesuites Luther and others of the reformed Churches And admit the review of the dispute between him and others of which part is printed part in the press and the rest expected like the monster in the mountain that was to bring forth should swell to the bulk of Origens books who is said to have writ more than most men have read That one pearl of Mr. Baxter's Plain Scripture proof would outweigh his whole Sandy Colosse as much as little Persius does great Marsus of whom Mermullius Saepius in libro memoratur Persius uno Quam levis in toto Marsus Amazoinde If he had not thus abruptly cut this Gordian knot which he â—hould have untyed my purposed methode was to proceed to 〈…〉 h. 19. 13 14 15. Mark 10. 13. to 17. Mark 9. 36 37. â— 9. 4 5. Luke 18. 15 16. John 3. 5. Rom. 11. thereby further to prove Infant-Church-membership whose answers to other mens Arguments drawn from thence if satisfactory which I suspect is no prejudice to mine before he hear them The two other branches I should have followed first that Christ merited Baptism for Infants secondly that Infants stand in need of Baptism These he waves and hastens to take a view of mâ— Sermon whose animadversions sent to Abergaveny I have not seen It is his visible Examen I must take notice of which being sufficiently sentenced and condemned by others must expect to be anatomized by me for I intend onely a brief Scheme or Skeleton of it for the present The Sermon Examined The third Part. 1. Section Mr. Tombes FIrst he saith and is baptized pag. 72. to be a conditional qualification and yet in the dispute he denyed that repentance is a condition of baptism Acts 2. 38. His observation out of Dr. Buckeridge pag. 73. is frivolous for the Apostles 1 Cor. 12. 28. saith as well of Apostles as ordinary Pastors and Teachers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he set them or if he will fixed them But it seems Mr. C. hath a speciall toth at Itinerants though his Relator claw Mr. Cr. and Mr. W. But what he saith that it is too strict an interpretation to expound Mark 16 15. of men of age and understanding excluding children shews he little considers what he saith for if it be so then Christ commandeth the Apostles to preach the Gospell to Infants and Sith Mr. C. is bound to do so he sheweth that he sins against his own light if he do not so But how foolish it would be for him to attempt it his own words shew when he saith Infants are not capable to be taught of men And when he saith that Infants onely iâ— actu primo are capable of the first seeds of understanding of profession of faith I would know in what sense they are sensible of the benefit they have by Christ And whereas he grants That baptism is necessary by necessity of precept if conveniently it may be had it is all â— asserted in my Sermon when I said all that would be saved must be baptized after profession Iâ— Austin were a hard Father to Infants for holding they must be baptized or not see the Kingdom of God then Mr. C. cannot gather from John 3. 5. Infants baptism from Mark 16. 16. is rightly gathered that believing is to be before baptism and yet from Mark 1. 4. it is not rightly gathered that we must be baptized before we can hear the word preached or repent for the Text doth not express that John baptized afore he preached but recites those two as connexed yet the latter is put first not because first done but because he was to set down more amply what he preaâ—hed Reply THis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self willed Hydra infects the waters of Baptism
are a part of Nations Therefore he that commanded to baptize all Nations commanded to baptize infants T. He denyed the consequent though the whole included every part and Nations were the whole and Infants were a part of Nations yet it did not follow that Infants were to be Baptized C. He returned that that saying of Aquinas posito toto generali pars ejus negari non potest a generall whole being granted no part of it can be denyed was an axiome both in Logick Philosophie and Divinity as Psalm 117. 1. Prayse the Lord all yee Nations is interpreted by another Psalm Old men and babes young men and maidens prayse ye the Lord. T. Mr. T. Said it was an Axiome that the whole includes every part where there is no exception but here is an exception C. He replyed Saint Ambrose upon the place sayes there is no exception Qui dixit omnes nullos exclusit neque parvulos c. He that said baptize all Nations excepted none no not infants T. Mr. T. Pished at it sleighting Ambrose his Authority C. Then said Mr. C. whether we shall obey Ambrose Bishop of Millain with Scripture or Mr. Tombes Vicar of Lemster against Scripture judge you But that there is no exception thus I prove If infants be excepted from Baptism it is either because they are not named in the text or because we find no instance that any were Baptized or because they are not capable But for none of these three Therefore infants are not excepted T. Mr. T. Denyed the Major and said that a fourth reason might be given because they were not Disciples C. He told him that in this answer he shewed himself to be no good Logician for it is an Axiome that in no division one member can be affirmed of another because they are opposite now to be Disciples and capable of Baptism were not opposite but subordinate And to be Disciples if it made them not capable it was no exception at all if it made them capable it was the same with the third to which Dilemma when he could receive no answer he demanded where it was required that those that are to be Baptized must be Disciples T. He said out of the Text for that which is translated Teach all Nations is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples of all Nations C. He replyed at Ross you found fault with me for that translation asking me was I wiser than the translators and now when it seems to make for you you urge it Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea modo I confess it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Aorist ye shall make Disciples for it must be interpreted by the future 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing or by baptizing in the present tense as if Discipling were the end and baptizing the means and required no qualification before as learned men with great probability press but I will not insist upon that now But that which you denyed I prove that infants may be Disciples from that place Rom. 15. 10. compared with the 5. verse for so Mr. C. said mistaking it for Acts 15. 10. T. At which Mr. Tombes insulted saying he was a good text-man C. He replyed he was in hast and did not think of this before but that his answer did drive him to it and he in his elaborate books did oftentimes quote one place for another then how much more might he that was extemporall it had been enough to have said as our Saviour to the tempter it s written but to leave these catches and come to the proof They upon whom the Pharisies would have layd the yoak were Disciples verse 10. Why tempt ye God to put a yoak upon the neck of the Disciples But many of them were Infants Therefore Infants are Disciples T. He denyed the Minor that many of them were not Infants C. Which was proved thus The yoak was Circumcision verse 5. the Pharisies saying that it was needfull to Circumcise them But they upon whom the yoak was to be imposed by Circumcision were onely infants amongst the Jews and Infants together with Parents amongst the Gentiles Therefore many of them were infants T. He denyed the Major and said the yoak was not Circumcision C. He replyed it was apparent by comparing the 5. and 10. with the foregoing verses 1. verse Certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren except ye be Circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved where observe that Circumcision is the subject of the Question In the 2. verse they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this Question to wit Circumcision In the 5. certain of the Sect of the Pharisees said that it was needfull to circumcise them In the 6 the Apostles came together to consider of the matter that is Circumcision and when there had been much disputing Peter rose up in the 7. and determined the Question in the tenth verse why tempt ye God to put a yoak upon the neck of the Disciples T. Mr. T. Said that Circumcision could not be the yoak that neither they nor their fathers could bear C. He returned that it was a bloody and a heavy yoak therefore the Israelites had a dispensation for 40 years in the wilderness Moses neglected the Circumcision of his child probably for this cause and his wife when the Child was Circumcised called him a bloody husband The Sichemites were slain as unable to defend themselves while they were sore of the wound of Circumcision T. Mr. T. Said that the Doctrine of Moses was the yoak of which Infants were not capable C. He replyed that Circumcision was principally meant and the doctrine of Moses onely as an Appendix of it and children were as capable of the doctrine then as they were in Abraham and Moses his time when all in the moment of Circumcision were tyed to the observation of the doctrine though they of ripe years to use Vossius his distinction were taught the doctrine antecedenter before Circumcision infants of eight days consequenter after Circumcision when age made them capable I know sayes God Abraham will teach his Children So it is apparent all those upon whom Circumcision with the doctrine of Moses was to be imposed were called Disciples But some of these were Infants for onely Infants were Circumcised among the Jews and Infants with the Parents among the Gentiles therefore some infants are Disciples Mr. T. Without any distinct answer would have broke through the pales to rove abroad again C. But he pressed him to keep within the lists urging this Argument They to whom is the promise they may be baptized it s the Apostles own inference Acts 2. 28. Be baptized for the promise is to you But to Infants of believing parents is the promise the promise is to you and your Children therefore Infants may be baptized T. He denyed the Minor that to infants of believing parents
found a flaw in his title for the term Antipaedobaptist is a new name a new thing and upon farther enquiry will be found a new nothing But before he make so great an attempt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Giants to contest with Heaven he might do well Polyphemus like to grapple with Ulisses and Traverse the Inditement preferred by Mr. Halls Font-garded page 74 in these words Hold up thy hand Anabaptist or Alias Anti-Paedobaptist Thou art here indited by the name of Anabaptist of the City of Munster in the County of Babel for that thou contrary to the peace of our Soveraign Lord and Saviour his Crown and Dignity hast brought forth disorder and confusion into the Church of God together with a bastard brood of Muntzerians Augustinians Hofniannians Georgians Servetians Silentiarians Eucheldians Swenkfeldians Hamanarians or Dungwagons Euchites Huttites Adamites Gabrielites Mennonites Melchiorites Apostolists Adiaphorists Spiritualists Enthysiasts Catharists Separatists Hemerobaptists Sebaptists Libertines c. Together with a Squadran of Arrians Arminians Socinians Anti-Trinitarians Anti-Sabbatarians Anti-Scripturists Mortalists Familists Perfectists Origenists Atheists Millenaries c. And that this might be the better effected let him except against the Jury which is first the Antient Fathers 2. The Reformed Churches 3. Calvin 4. Ursin 5. Apollonius 6. Mr. Perkins 7. Mr. Heron 8. Mr. Pemble 9. Dr. Usher 10. Mr. Baxter 11. Mr. Ward 12. Mr. Brinsley 13. Dr. Tho. Goodwin with many others And having made good his exceptions let him reverse the sentence which is as followeth Anabaptist thou hast been indited by the name of Anabaptist for cruelty and injury to the Lambs of Christ Thou hast been found guilty and art condemned both by God and man by all reformed Churches by Scriptures Fathers Councels by learned and pious Divines both sorraigne and domestick both old and new by friends and foes And therefore I adjudge thee to a Recantation and Abrenunciation of all thy loose licentious tenets that thou no more disturb this Church and State least Justice do Arrest thee But he unmindfull of this as if the Anabaptist were the Plantiff and not the Reus or party at the Barr in question inveighs against the vanity and falshood of scribled papers Tria Cerberus extulit ora tres latratus simul edidit Ovid Metamor 5. Three terms of diminution with three breaths It was Libanius Porphyrie and Julians project to throw dung in the face of Orthodox Writers So does Mr. Tombes calling Mr. Baxters learned piece Plain Scripture-proof for Infant Baptism A cheat and Mock-titled book Mr. Marshalls impregnable Defence Ink and paper and the relation of the dispute had with him at Abergaveny vanity and falshood of scribled papers Vanity perhaps because he thinks it is in vain to attempt the steely resolutions of the fautors and fomenters of Anabaptism yet we have found the contrary in some Falshood not in respect of the fidelity of relating the Dispute and Sermon nor of the Opponents Arguments which are true in both But of the position maintained by the Respondent which is a falshood and such an one as may leaven the whole lump But why of scribled papers It may be Mr. Tombes met with it before printed and not unlikely because his Answer came out within three weeks after it which could not be unlesse it had been mounted upon Bellerophons horse and Pegasus his wings especially seeing he is known Elephant-like to be long in conception and ursino lambere more partum deliberately to lick into shape that which he hath conceived But he goes on saying they were entituled The Anabaptists Anatomized and silenced By whom Not by the Relator nor Mr. Vaughan nor me I will not say by Mr. Tombes and his party but I am confident they knew of it long before any of us But where Anatomized and silenced He says in a publick Dispute at Abergaveny in Monmothshire he sayes But neither the scribled papers to use his Tapinosis nor printed papers mentions any such thing Indeed the engraven paper speakes of Anabaptists Anatomized and silenc'd but not at Abergaveny Sept. 5. 1653 The place for any thing I see may be Munster the time when when John of Leiden was confuted by the Lantgraves preachers so that the last words are his own pure pute addition wherein we have found out the vanity and falshood before mentioned And further to bespatter his Antagonists he closes his frontispiece page with a text out of the book of Job but very ominously for they are the words of one unjustly charging Job as he does us his name is Zophar which in the Syriak signifies A Goat by country a Naamathite which signifies Set on the left hand joyn them together and you know the sentence And this book thus frontispieced and imbellished is to be sold at the sign of Sir John Old-Castle a Traitor who was hanged on a gibbet and burned in St. Gyles fields Stow Chr. pag. 599. vâ—no vendibili digna est hedera like sign like wine By the tree we may know the ensuing fruits Mr. Tombes 2. Section There came newly to my hands a pamphlet wherein the Intitler speaks like a vain Braggadochio as if the book had ript up the Anabaptists as he terms them and like a Prelate had silenced them though there was but one whom with any face it could be pretended that he was Anatomized or silenced who yet speaks and writes for the truth which these opponents do endevour to disgrace and rejoycâ—th that he lives to find that these men have no other thing to charge him with than his contending for a reformation of that prophane abuse of Infant-sprinkling and that they have no other encouragement from him to persist in their Paedobaptism but a fond hope of his returning to that sinfull practise Reply He sayes There came newly to his hands a Pamphlet And why a Pamphlet and yet scribled papers Unlesse a Manuscript with a womans â—oot and all contradictions ex adjecto may be reconciled The Intitler of it he sayâ—s speaks like a vaâ—n Braggadochio as if the book had ript up the Anabaptists The Intitler he means of the Anabaptists Anatomized and Silenced at Abergaveny What Intitler the Man in the moon or Oberam King of the Fairies We see none visible but himself and then judge who is the vain Bragadochio Besides he alters the state of the question In the Title page he sayes the Anabaptist anatomized and silenced in a dispute at Abergaveny and here he speaks of the book Anatomizing and silencing the Anabaptists how do these things suit with the truth or câ—here one with another There is not such a word in the book as that the Anabaptists were anatomized and silenced at Abergaveny or if anatomized and silenced in the dispute at Abergaveny does it follow that the book did rip and silence them which was then and some months after not in being The Dispute is one thing the book another which when Mr. T. writ this had not so
sprinkling or falling upon them then the Text 1 Cor. 10. 2. doth prove baptizing to be by sprinkling or pouring on Hugo Grotius interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by madefacere lavare ablâ—â—re to moysten wash purge not necessarily to dip If his authority be of weight the controversie is at an end if not why quotes he his descant that they were baptized that is as if they were baptized which he quite overthrowes to be taken in his sense when he sayes it is the same with that of others to be analogically baptized who meant that they were truly washed or baptized as were those typical of the Law materially the same differing formally because representing some analogie or similitude with the sacramental baptism of the Gospel It s true and demonstrable which I say where is mention made in the Gospel of baptizing or washing themselves when they came from market of cups of vessels of tables this cannot be meant of plunging in water so often but rinsing not onely because water was so scarce but for other reasons rivetted in the Text Luke 11. 38. The Pharisees wondered at Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was not baptized or washed before dinner not doused or plunged his whole body Heb. 9. 10. the ceremonial sprinklings are called baptisms Luke 16. 24. The glutton beggs that Lazarus might be sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might baptize or dip the top of his finger not the whole body in water 1 Sam. 14 27. Jonathan as the Septuagints read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dipped the end not the whole of his rod in the hony comb So Sophocles uses it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou hast tinctured not dipped thy whole weapon in the Grecian army Mr. Tombes interprets that literally Mat. 3. 11. as verified on the day of Pentecost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire the fire did not encompasse the whole bodies but sate in the shape of cloven tongues upon part of their garments This acceptation the Athenian Oracle puts out of question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptize or wash him but do not plunge him I have not seen Ainsworth on Levit. 11. 32 therefore am jealous he may use him as he does Casaubon however neither his nor the Hebrew canons are Canon of Scripture Ainsworth as he quoâ—es him speaks only of men and vessels rendred unclean by the dead carkases of unclean beasts who haply in that case were not clensed but by dipping in the whole This is fallacia a secundum quid ad simpliciter makes nothing for the Typicall much lesse all baptism to beby dipping Mr. Tombes 5. Section ME thinks Mr. C. should allow Anabaptists to make consequences though they allowed not his And that John Baptist ' s and Philip ' s going down into the water proves something me thinks Mr. C. should mot deny sith it cannot reasonably be imagined they should go down noâ— to the water as Mr. C. would have it but into the water whereas for baptizing a person a man might easily have fetched or taken water out of any spring to baptize with if it had been so to be done by sprinkling and not by dipping But if he please to see a book entituled Of Baptism written by an eminent man in the state he might See many of the prime writers even leading Protestants gathering dipping thence as used then in baptizing The like they do from John 3. 23. of which whatever Geographer or Traveller saith Enon where John baptized was a little brook that one may stride over scarce knee deep and therefore not capable of dipping which doth not follow deserves not to be believed in this Out of Rom. 6 4. we do not presse a necessity of dipping because of the resemblance but from the resembled and alluded to shew the use then ingeniously confessed by Mr. Vaughan and therefore should be the use still Nor doth it follow we must lie three dayes and nights in water the resemblance of Christs burial is to be continued though not the duration What ever other resemblance there may be of our burial with Christ yet we are to follow the institution and practice set down in Scripture from which he that swerves as sprinklers do do sin against Christs command what ever any Divines or assemblies of men say to the contrary Reply I cannot allow of this consequence of the Anabaptists John baptized in Jordan Philip went down to the water with the Eunuch Acts 8. 36. therefore they were dipped seeing it might as well be by pouring or sprinkling of water upon them for any thing appears And may be reasonably imagined they descended to the water as is more congruous to the original not into the water for all it is possible water might have been fetched out of the spring to baptize them if he can prove the Eunuch had a vessel in his Chariot or John Baptist a fitter Font than Jordan to baptize all Judea and Jerusalem in But admit it be they went down into the water as Psal 107. They go down into the sea it will no more prove the one was under the water than the other The baptized might stand in to the knees have his head dipped in or water poured upon him Their going down into the water was either dipping it self or a distinct act from it if a dâ—stinct act from it how proves it dipping If it was dipping it self then Philip and John Baptist were dipped as well as the Eunuch and all Judea and Jerusalem Whosoever that eminent man in the State is that hath written a book entituled of Baptism he cannot produce many of the prime writers even leading Protestants gathering the necessity of dipping thence as to be used onely in baptizing nay nor scarce the frequent practice then Eusebius de locis Hebraicis and Jerom his Interpreter from the smalnesse of the spring intimates the contrary Est hodie Bethsoron inquit vicus euntibus nobis ab Aeliâ Chebron in vicessimo lapide juxta quem fons ad rad ces montis ebulliens ab â—adem gignitur sorbetur humo Apostolorum acta referunt Eunuchum Candacâ—s reginae in hoc esse baptizatum a Philippo Fuller Misc pag. 205. It cannot so much as de facto from John 3. 23. be proved that those that were baptized in Enon were dipped because Geographers and Travellers of credâ—t tells us that Enon is a little brook that one may stride over scarce knee deep and therefore not capable of dipping which they interpret swimming between the top and the bottom and touch neither They cannot out of Rom. 6. 4. presse a necessity of dipping either from the resemblance or the resemblance alluded to without a divine institution or determined practise of the Apostles which was not confessed by Mr. Vaughan but the frequencie of it in succeeding Centuries which being a thing Adâ—apherous the Church had their liberty of indifferencie not to alter Christs institution as he dis-ingenuously
ones and boyes These that were new born are the baptized in Scripture-phrase Tit. 3. 5. baptism is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of the new birth which to be so meant Master Mead in his Diatriba thinks none will deny Master Tombes 25. Section ORigens speeches are in the Latine books translated by Ruffinus into which many things were foysted by him and these its probable were so as being so express against the Pelagians nor do I find he was ever alleged by Austin who gathered the most antient testimonies he could for originall sin and infant-baptism Therefore saith Vosâ—ius in his Theses of infant baptism we less care for Origen because they are not in Greek Cyprian's testimony is granted to be in the third Century and Ambroses and Austins and the Milevitan Councils and inâ—umerable more but all upon the Popish errours of giving grace and the necessity to save a child from damnation Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian before him disswade from it except in case of danger of death in appearance near out of which case the antients did not baptize infants and in that case the Communion was given them But otherwise they baptized not infants no not of believing Parents till they came to years and then they were first Catechized in Lent and then solemnly baptized at Easter and Whitsuntide as may be gathered even from the Common Prayer Book in the Rubrick before Baptism Reply ORigen that lived in the beginning of the third Century sayes The Church received a tradition from the Apostles to baptize Infants and gives a reason because they are born in impurity of sin what is added is ingenuously confessed by Ruffinus the Translator himself Erasmus Perkins nor any that plays the Critick upon him impeaches him in the fore quoted place A negative argument from Scripture in matter of fact will not conclude shall Austins non-allegation then of Origen or which is more ridiculous Mr. T. not finding it disparage the authority of Origen Vossius in his Theses of infant baptism less cares for those parts of Origen that are not in the Greek yet does not wholly discard them some testimonies may be more authentick than others yet all creditable Pelagius a great Scholar who lived in the latter end of this Century Though he denyed Original sin yet confessed Infant-baptism for when they pressed him with this Argument If Infants had not Originall sin what need they baptism He answered that Christ appointed and the Church practised Infant-baptism not to purge sin by past but to prevent it for the time to come This Mr. T. ingenuously passes by as unanswerable and by silence gives consent Cyprian confirms it in his 59. Epistle to Fidus and gives an account of sixtie six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be baptized Ambrose sayes because every age is lyable to sin therefore every age is â—it for the Sacrament of Baptism Nazianzen sayes it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism though they know it not than to leave them unsealed Austin Serm. 15. de verb. Apost speaking of Infant-Baptism sayes The Church alwaies had it alwaies observed it received it from the faith of their Ancestors keeps it with perseverance to the end The Milevitan Councill decreed That whosoever should deny that Infants even taken from the Mothers wombs might be Baptized should be accursed All this he grants yet blasts it as his brethren of Transilvania did the Trinity with this infectious breath that they were all upon the Popish errours of giving grace and the necessity to save a child from damnation when Popery was not yet nor was this the errour of all or any of them finally as Dr. Hâ—mes hath proved or if it were shall the abuse of a thing take away the lawfull use much less the evidence of fact which is the Question How Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian before him disswades from it except in danger of death is formerly answered It was either Pagans or if believers to consult their bodyly health they did the like to young men unmarryed that were converted and widows neither do we find they prevailed in the least against the generall practice of Infant Baptism which was so inviolable that as the Question is stated I think he cannot shew one instance to the contrary If some gave them the Communion iâ— no more impeaches the lawfulness of their Baptism than the Jesuits joyning spittle Salt exorcism in Baptizing the Indians of years does Mr. T. supposed Baptism of believers That unless in danger of death the antients Baptized not Infants is as loud a lye as any is in the Golden legion Ovidâ— Metamorphosis or Lucians Dialogues The Rubrick of the Common Prayer book before Baptism makes no mention of Catechizing in Lent much less that believers Infants were not Baptized till they came to years but that the Sacrament of Baptism in the old time was not commonly ministred but at Easter and Whitsontide He that thus falsifies an evidence that every Boy or Girle that can but read may check him in Judge what he does with the Greek and Latine Fathers Mr. Tombes 26. Section IT is most false that all ages all Churches agree in infant baptism some Churches never had it Some Churches five hundred years agâ— of the godly and learned that then were did oppose it and practice the baptism of believers onely If Mr. Fox and others did account Anabaptists Hereticks it was for other Tenents than this Master Baxter himself saith no sober divine did ever reckon the Anabaptists as Hereticks meerly for the errour of rebaptizing plain Scripture proof c. part 1. chap. 1. yet Mr. C. bespatters Antipaedobaptism thus it robs the Scripture of its truth infants of their right Parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory Sure he hath learned the art of him in the Comaedian to calumniate boldly imagining something will be believed though there be not a word true But there is more of this venom behind That it is the mother of many other errours Hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Quakers Levellers they that are above ordinances Antiscripturians will any believe that from the Tenet which doth so stifly maintain an ordinance should spring the errour of being above ordinances Or that the errour of Antiscripturians should spring from that Tenet which doth sâ— strictly insiâ—t on the Scripture Let Mr. C. shew any the least connexion between Antipaedobaptism and the errours he names and he saith something else if onely the persons and not the Tenet be guilty of these errours he doth but calumniate He might with like reason say The Christian Religion is the Mother of many other errours hence sprung Ebionites Corinthians Nicholaitans Gnosticks c. such kind of criminations are most stinking and base slanders unworthy a sober minded man much more a Divine in the Pulpit speaking to many people who examine not but take all for true which such Rabbins talk with confidence