obscurely the necessary circumstance of the time would have been as precisely observed and agreed upon to be but one Thus the former proposition is cleared The latter by him denyed is this That Infant-Baptism was not alwayes he cunningly alters the subject of the Question and says that Infant-sprinkling was not held of the whole Church nor do we say so for it was and may be as well by pouring on water or dipping if infants bodâ—es in these cold Climates would endure it the usual way that we practise is either by pouring on water on the face of the Child if it be weak or dipping in part of the head if it be somewhat strong Gods Ordinances are not destructive to Nature who requires mercy and not sacrifice And that Infant Baptism was thus held alwayes is apparent To pass by divine Institution and Apostolical practise of which anon Dionysius the Areopagite and Clemens in the Apostles constitutions both makes for Infant-Baptism if the books be theirs as they have been entituled these many hundred years the cause is ours so farâ— if not theirs they must not expect any proof of men living in the first Century being extant none beside them Justin Martyr who lived Anno 150. in his 56 Question disputes the different condition of those Children which dye baptized and of those children who dyed unbaptized Two things are objected against this Testimony 1. That the reason of Baptizing of Infants was not the Covenant of grace made to believers and their seed but that they might obtain salvation at the resurrection This is so far from overthrowing that it confirmes the reason being in Covenant with the parents for of such speaks the Author whose parents are believers gives the children capacity to be baptized and they are baptized that they may have salvation at the resurrection for we have no promise of the salvation of any out of the pales of the visible Church The second objection is that Perkins Rivet and others questions whether it be Justin Martyrs book or no. To which I answer there is scarce a book in Scripture any Article of the Creed or part of Antiquity but it hath been questioned by some If we should reject all things that are questioned we must turn Academicks Scepticks and Seckers in all things howsoever it gives evidence to matter of fact that Infants were Baptized in that age in which it was written Irenaeus that lived in the same Century says lib. 2. cap. 39 Christ came to save all that are new born by him into God Infants and little ones and boyes c. Who are those that are new-born The Baptized Which suits with the language of the Holy Ghost in Scripture Tit. 3. 5. The Apostle calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of the new birth which is so clear that Mr. Mead in his Diatriba upon the place thinks that none will deny that by washing of regeneration baptism is meant or pointed at Besides its the dialect of the Greek Fathers near whose time he lived Justin Martyr speaking of those that are brought to be baptized says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are born anew or regenerated after the same manner we are regenerated being washed as it followes in the name of the father and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost Dioâ—ysius Hierarch cap. 2. calls the materials of Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divine signes of Divine generation Basil and Nazianzene calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the regeneration of the soul all this makes it appear that Irenaeus did drive at the regeneration of Infants by Baptism as well as them of years Origen whom Perkins places at the year 230. says upon Rom. 6. lib. 5. The Church received the Tradition of Baptising of Infants from the Apostles affirming the same thing in substance Homily 8th upon Leviticus and Homily 18. in Lucam Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum Little ones are baptized for the remission of sins The exceptions against these are three 1. They are translations Origens Greek in the Original is lost The same may be said of S. Matthews Gospel which he writ in the Hebrew or Syriack now lost the Greek Copy onely extant And of the Septuagints Translation of the Old Testament which our Saviour himself followed more exactly than the Hebrew Original Translations agreeing with the Original Copy being equally Authentick But secondly it is said that the Translation is censured by Erasmus and Perkins as in something contracting adding or altering What is added is ingeniously confessed by Rufinus the Translator himself neither does acute Erasmus nor Judicious Perkins nor any of the Ancients most Critical impeach him in the fore quoted Testimonies Therefore this Exception is blank The third thing objected is that he calls it a Tradition So does the Apostle things contained in Scripture 2 Thes 2. 15. Epiphanius calls Baptism and other divine truthes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions and yet quotes Scripture for them Bellarmine calls Infant-Baptism a tradition and yet brings ten places of Scripture to prove it Austin affirms lib. 10. cap. 23. de Genes That the custom of our mother the Church in Baptising of little ones is in no wise to be despised nor to be thought superfluous nor at all to be believed unlesse it were an Apostolick Tradition and yet proves the necessity of it from John 3. 5. Vnless one be born again of water and the Spirit c. Gregory Nazianzen who as Dr. usher and Mr. Perkins sayes lived in the year 370 or 380. commands Children to be Baptized and gives a reason Orat. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they not misse of common grace nothing is excepted against this but that he gave his opinion of others to defer their Baptism unlesse they were in danger of death which I shall clear anon To these may be joyned Athanasius who interpret Script Quest 94. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the dipping of the Child quite under the water thrise and raising of it up again doth signifie the death of Christ and the Resurrection the third day In his second Question ad Antioch he enquires how one shall know that he was truly baptized and received the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who when he received Baptism was but an Infant He answers that it may be known by the motions of the Spirit as the woman knowes she hath conceived when she feeles the Child stir in her womb And Question 114. he being asked whether Infants dying go to be punished or to the Kingdome Says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Infants are holy here you see many hundred years before Zuinglius covenant-holiness is acknowledged and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Infants of Believers that are Baptized do as unspotted and faithfull enter into the Kingdome Epiphanius amongst the Greek Fathers brings up the rear avouching that Circumcision had its time untill the great Circumcision came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is
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
much as seen Abergaveny He addes to render it more odious like a Prelate had silenced them Truly as there is no such thing as a Prelate extant to silence in the Church so no such thing as this forementioned Silencing in the book I wish I could truly say so much of the third No such thing as an Anabaptist to be silenced I mean the opinion their persons I love their piety and learning where it is found I reverence But Mr. T. might have found nearer home some more resembling the most Prelatical of Prelates not excluding the Pope and that 's they that Magisterially prefers their own private opinions before the judgments of learned and godly Assemblies of Divines Harmonies of Confessions Determinations of Councells Oecomenial censuring all their brethren that dissents of prophane abuse and sinfull practise as he does in the words following In the interim he sayes there was but one whom with any face it could be pretended he was Anatomized or silenced Perhaps he means because he was the only Disputant yet there were two in the Pulpit that interposed with him some fâ—w that spake in the crowd many that ostentatiously vaunted before the Dispute that were more modest or silent afterwards But yet he speaks and writes for the Truth So said Copp and Collier I wish he did so we would be so far from opposing or disgracing his tenet that we would endeavour to maintain it with him and advance it Truth commonly goes attended with humility and self-denial which I fear the words following little relish of for he rejoyceth that those that dâ—ssent from him have no other thing to charge him with than his contending for a reformation of that prophane abuse of Infant-sprinkling Well be it so or the contrary we had rather with Sem and Japhet cover the nakednesse of Fathers in Israel than with Cam to expose it to open shame yet we think that the poor Publican that abaseth himself will rather go away justified than the proud Pharisie that rejoyces or thanks God that he is not as other men nor as those that are for the prophane abuse of Infant-sprinkling A high charge and dangerous if he make it not good which he will never do by his pretended reformation otherwise than to use the homely comparison of a godly man the devill did when going to streighten his dammes legge he broak it In the mean time the lesse hope we have of his return the more is his losse yet who knowes but he that like Saul reviles this way which he calls of sinfull practise may with the stray sheep be brought home at length to see his errour to the joy of men and Angels Mr. Tombes 3 Section The Libel hath a frontispice which pretends to shew the manner of the Anabaptists dipping but most falsly sith it represents it to the eyâ— of the beholders as if they held persons by the heels when they baptize them which is otherwise than their practise The pretended manner of laying on of hands and washing of feet is unknown to me if they do use it yet they have such likely proofes from Heb. 6. 2. and our Saviours practise and command John 13. as might have deterred the Author of this frontispiece from exposing the Ordinance of Baptism and those other Rites to contempt had he any reverence to holy things and regard to Christs appointment But the frontispiece of Dr. Featlies book and this with the Epistles and other passages do give occasion to intelligent persons to conceive that this sort of men do make but a sport of Christs Ordinance and that they have little mind to search for or receive truth but to expose them that are for believers Baptism and against Infant-sprinkling to the contempt of light and prophane wits and to the hatred of the ignorant and supersticious common people And I conceive that this book is published by men of that spirit who seeke to make odious the endeavoured reformation of ignorance superstition prophaneness and ungodlinesse which abounds in those parts and to uphold those either loose or formal pretended Ministers who take upon them to teach but indeed as Elymas the Sorcerer Acts 13. pervert the right way of the Lord. Reply Still more venome he calls it a Libell why because unlicensed So is his Plea and the most of his works except his Exercitation and Examen and they but conditionally which being violated renders them more obnoxious Or because dissonant from the doctrine of the reformed Churches So this falls under that guilt and it is cleared A Libell as my Lord of St. Albans Etimologized it hath its name from a Ly and a Bell A Ly hatched at home a Bell to ring it abroad So Mr. Tombes his Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists was hatched in private in his study rung abroad through the Country A Lye nay like the man possessed with devils amongst the Tombes its name is Legion because they are many This he saith hath a Frontispiece he should have said an Anti-frontispiece which pretends to shew the manner of Anabaptists dipping but most falsly sith it represents to the eyes of the beholders as if they held persons by the heels when they baptize them which is otherwise then their practise To which I return in his own language he relates it most falsly seing the representation is otherwise than he says for if he had not been I will not say like to Elymas the Sorcerer to whom he compares us smit with blindnesse he might have seen they hold them by the hands and not by the heels unlesse their heels be-continued and immediately joyned to their neck and shoulders which cannot be imagined unlesse like Ulisses companions when thrown into the water they are Metamorphized into swine their armes turned into leggs their hands into heeles And what strange Prodigie if they had been represented as held by the heels It s a known thing that some have been thrown in by the hands but have been pulled out dead by the heels with this funeral sermon preached over them I tremble to utter it You see that no sooner are they new-born but God takes them to himself But this Anti-Paedobaptist hath another quarrel at the Anti-frontispiece page which he fastens upon the Paedobaptists and the frontispiece page which is that the pretended manner of laying on of hands and washing of feet is unknown to him and yet he seems to call it Christs appointment and says that they have likely proofs from Heb. 6. 2. and our Saviours practise and command John 13. whence we may gather that there are some things of Christs appointment and have proof from Scripture and our Saviours practise and command which are unknown to him It seems he is but yet a Seeker and though it were true he dissented in nothing from the Church of England save in the Question of Infant-Baptism By this principle he is lyable to stray as far as the German Anabaptists I will not impeach him with Judaism for making
Anabaptists out of which he picks two propositions and then plants his Ordinance against them The former is the saying of Augustin That which the whole Church holds was never begun by any Councel but alwayes observed cannot otherwise be believed but that it came from the Apostles The later is The whole Church always held Infant-Baptism both these he denies which are both Austins The former de Bapt. contra Donatist lib. 4. cap. 23. The later Serm. 15. de verb. Apost I le begin with the former 1. Applying to the Test the proposition then examine the sandy ground upon which he denies it The proposition which he calls Austins rule is That which the universal Church holdeth and was not instituted by Councels but hath been ever held was not delivered but by Apostolical Authority This I undertake to make good 1. Distinguishing of Church 2. Of the Object or that which is holden of the Church Church is sometimes taken for the representative of the Church and that according to the extent or restraint provincial National or Oecumenial Sometimes it is taken essentially as some call it or integrally for the body of professors living at the same time and this either for the major part which as in Councels obtaines the denomination of the whole or of the whole made up of integrall parts without any considerable exception Sometime it is taken for all professors of all times whether since the death and expiration of the Apostles or since our Saviours commissioning of them after his resurrection or full qualifying of them upon the day of Pentecost after his ascension while as Egisippus said the Church continued a pure Virgin Secondly we must distinguish of the Tenets or things holden by the Church which is either matter of Doctrine or Discipline Discipline grounded upon Scripture binding and necessary Or Adiaphorous of Ecclesiastical institution and arbitrary These grounds thus laid I raise these propositions First it s confessed A representative Church whether Provincional National or Oecumenial may err hath erred de facto in superstructures or things less fundamental 2. Neither Provincional National nor Oecumenial representative can erre in fundamentals for then it would cease to be a Church 3. The major part of the Church living at the same time may err as in the time of Elias I only am left sayes he that have not bowed my knee to Baal Vnus Athanasius contra cotum mundum 4. The whole Church consisting of all the integral parts cannot erre in matter of Doctrine requisite to be holden I have reserved seven thousand says God that have not bowed their knee to Baal and undoubtedly many besides Athanasius that in his time were not infected with Arrianism 5. The whole Church since the Apostles in all ages collectively considered cannot err either in Doctrine or Discipline then Christ should not make good his promise that the gates of Hell should not prevaile against his Church that he would be with it to the end that he would send them the Comforter that would lead them into all tâ—uth Which promises howsoever the Church of Rome misapplies to themselves whom Dr. Reignolds hath proved neither are the Catholick Church nor any sound member thereof yet it is true of the whole Church 6. It is possible that the whole Church since the Apostles may hold an Adiaphorous or indifferent Discipline or Ceremony which was not Apostolical or of Divine institution 7. That which the whole Church holds hath in all ages holden including the Apostles whether it be Doctrine or Discipline must needs be Authentick and infallible Of thâ—s nature is the present Question as appears by the words of Austin in the fore-quoted place if any aske for Divine authority observe it not humane in this matter Although we most rightly believe that what the Vniversal Church holdeth and was not instituted by Councels but hath been ever held he does not say since the Apostles for that is not ever was not delivered but by Apostolical authority because it is impossible that any thing should generally be holden in the Apostles time that was not by their authority and approbation By this you see the truth of the proposition Now let us examin the ground upon which he denies it for then saith he the observation of an Easter and sundry other superstitious Rites should be from the Apostles His Argument put in form is this Easter and other Rites have been held alwayes but Easter and those Rites are not from the Apostles therefore that which hath been held alwayes is not from the Apostles I deny the first proposition that Easter hath been alwayes for by what Cronologies and Histories will he prove that Easter was observed in all Centuries in all Churches East West African Greek Latine in China Muscovia India For so much alwayes holden implies have not our Antiquaries and Century-writers discovered a known beginning of Lent-fast and Easter And after it began somewhat obscurely like the heads of Nilus as Eusebius says in his fift book chapt 24. it was left free unto all men which argues it was not alwayes but an Adiaphorous Rite of Ecclesiastical institution Therefore Irenaeus treated and argued the businesse with Victor Bishop of Rome when he would have excommunicated the East Church because it agreed not with the Church of Rome about the keeping of Easter What saith he may we not live at concord although they use their own Rites and we ours The time of keeping of Easter as Venerable Bede stories it was one of the three Questions that occasioned the Massacre of eleven hundred Monks at Bangor the British Bishops pressed the observation of it upon the day of the month of our Saviours resurrection Austin the Monk from Gregories authority would have it a movable Feast observed after the manner as the Church of England did of late Both sides hotly pretended Apostolical institution in circumstances so different which argued neither side had just claim to either Now whether of these will Mr. Tombes avouch was alwaies For he speaks indifferently and indefinitly calling it the observation of an Easter he must either both or neither If both his judgment will be lâ—ke his Holinesse of Rome who when the Parisians in France and the Inhabitants of Mentz in Germany laid claime to the Reliques of St. Dionyse enterred many hundred years before he adjudged that both places had the whole body I should think a domestick sentence symbolizes better with the present controversie which was this When after the death of Anthony Kitchin alià s Dunstan Bishop of Landaff there were severall suites commenced by several men all layâ—ng claim to the house and lands belonging to the Episcopal See as sold by him all of them respectively shewing instruments as they pretended with his hand and seal the Court rejected them all as forged after his death for it was conceived if he had truly sold them it would have been but to one So if Easter had been alwayes and had not crept in
12. some descending some ascending up the scale of Primitive practise till they loose it into Apostolical use and divine institutâ—on To passe by Dionysius the Areopagite contemporanian with the Apostles Clemens the Author of the Questions ad Orthodoxos Justin Martyr who flourished 150. years after Christs Nativity 48 years after St. John Irenâ—us that lived in 180. Origen in the year 230. Nizianzâ—n 280. Cyprian and a Councel of sixty six Bishops 260 Augustine who flourished 405 do all harmoniously avouch the Universal practise of Infant-Baptism of whom Augustine is the mouth The Church says he alwayes had it alwayes kepâ— it received it from the faith of their Ancestors kept it perseveringly unto the end To which I will onely add that of Pelagius which is unanswerable a man who lived but 400 years after Christ a great Scholer of eminent parts that travelled over Europe Asia and Afâ—ice whereby he gained great experience knew the custome of most places Amongst many other dangerous opinions he maintained that Infants were conceived and borne without Original sin which came unto them when growing in years not from an inward principle of corruption but from their imitation of outward ill Examples presented unto them S. Austin confutes this by an Argument drawn from the custome of the Church in all ages to baptize Infants and that expresly in his 150. Epistle unto Sixtus in the 18 chapter of his book of Marriage and Concupiscence in his four books to Bonifacius in his books against Julian one of Pelagius his Scholers to wave many more instances that might be produced The Argument in forme is this Those who according to the custome of the Church have been baptized in all ages have Original sin But Infants according to the custom of the Church have been baptized in all ages therefore Infants have original sin If there had been the least colour that he could without shamelâ—sse impudencie have denyed the Minor he might have said I have been a travellour and have conversed with the most Churches in Christendome have read over the Annals Histories and Antiquities of these four hundred years since Christ as doubtles he had and I find the custome hath not been Universal nor the spring and rise from Christ and the Apostles But he avouches nothing of this as knowing it was such a notorious untâ—uth as would render his other Tenets ignominious But endevoured to evade Austin's Argument by this device namely by pleading that Baptism was administred to Infants not to wash away their Original sin but to bring them to the kingdome of Heaven This Master Tombes confesses but his figg leaves to cover the shame of it are most pittifull that the Pelagians did grant the baptizing of Infants because they durst not oppose the custome of the Church that was generall was it general then and not before When began it Durst he not tell them that it was an innovation encroachment and not so from the beginning if there had been the least colour of plea for a position so advantagious for his interests when he durst broach errors so pernicious and destructive maugre the opposition of Prelates Councells and the whole Church The seventh untruth is That when Infants were baptized it was very rarely The contradictory whereof hath been sufficiently evidenced Austin's hoc ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit may well outvie Mr. Tombes's non habuit non tenuit Let our Adversaries show if they can that the Baptism of Infants in the primitive times was denied or deferred unlesse it be for the foregoing or the like reasons Walfridus Strabo his sayings chapt 26. de rebus Ecclesiasticis that in the fiâ—st times the grace of Baptism was wont to be given to them onely who were come to the integritie of mind and body that they could know and understand what profit was to be gotten in Baptism what is to be confessed and believed what lastly to be observed by them that are to be new-born to Christ is meant onely of them that are converted when of age being not borne of believing parents as appears by his instance of Augustine whose parents cannot be proved out of any Authentick history to be Christians when he was born and the words following backs this Interpretation Afterwards being Christians and understanding original sin c. ne perirent parvuli si sine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur statuerunt eos baptizari in remissionem pâ—ccatorum least their little ones should perish if they dyed without the remedy of the grace of regeneration they appointed to baptize them for the remissioâ— of sins Afterward being Christians they understood Original sin when they were not Christians they understood it not and then it was not fit their Infants should be baptized but being Christians and understandâ—ng it their Infants were baptized That saying of Grotius that many of the Greeks deferred the baptism of little ones till they could themselves make confession of their faith is a groundlesse fiction which he invented partly to ingratiate with the Socinians partly with Cardinal Peronius with both whereof he agreed like Sampson's Foxes in the taile of this Question though otherwise there were fire brands of dissention between them Photius a learned Grecian who knew better the custom of the Greeks than either Grotius or the Anabaptists his clyents produces an Imperiall constitution wherein it was decreed that all baptized Samaritans and Grecians should be punished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who brought not their wives and children in their families to holy Baptism Tit. 1. de fide cap. 10. Here you see that there was a Law that upon strict penalty required of Grecians that were baptized themselves that they should bring their children to baptism He alledges another imperial constitution that the Samaritans should not be admitted to be baptized till catechised in or after conversion but their children though they knew not the doctrine were to be baptized The Councell in Trullo canon 84. requires that all the Graecians little ones without delay should be baptized One of the eight Canons in Carthage concluded against Pelagius affirmed that whosoever denyed Baptism for the remission of sins to a new-born Infant should be Anathematized Balsamon in his glosse upon the forementioned Canon relates that the Romans buying children taken captive by the Scythians and Hagarens from a Christian Country put it to the Question whether they were to be baptized or no some pleaded they came from a Country where Christians dwelt and therefore it was to be presumed they were baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their Infancie others doubted whether they were baptized or no all concluded if they were not they ought to be baptized All which clearly testifies that Infant-Baptism was generally in use amongst Christians seeing they presumed where Christians inhabited Infant-Baptism was in use Now if such among the Greeks as brought not their children to Baptism were to be punished If Imperial lawes and Synodical Canon required Infant-Baptism if
be found it cannot be justified without sacriledge His third allegation that the true cause of Anabaptism is shining forth of lâ—ght from the Scriptures and other Authors what other Authors Is not Scripture by Bellarmine's own confession certissima omnium perfectissima regula the most certain and perfectest rule of all Yea the sole and adequate rule of our faith Scripture its true may impart its light to other Authors as the Sun empties his rayes as the Astronomers speak in inferiores crateras into inferiour sublunary vessels If the Scripture have thus emptied it self for the advantage of Anabaptism they might do well to let it appear produce one solâ—d Argument out of Scripture against Infant-Baptism name one Authentick and impartial Author that demonstrates out of one Text of Scripture that Infants ought not de jure to be baptized out of the undoubted Records of one Century that de facto they were not baptized but this they never could do yet never will do Indeed they may fancy to themselves abundance of light out of Scripture like sick persons in some disease when death approaches thinks that store of tapers and torches are lighted about the bed when the candle is out the cause is in the distemper of the brain and eye and if the spiritual eye of the soul be darkened 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how great is the darkness The fourth Allegation is That this light out of Scripture and other Authors was not discerned formerly as now Some of our Anabaptists are of opinion that Christ never locally ascended into heaven but onely vanished out of sight and is yet bodily upon the earth vouchsafing his apparition to the Saints now which he did not in former ages This is either a diabolical fiction or a deluding Phantasm like to this is the pretended light out of Scripture and other Authors for Anabaptism not discerned formerly as now Did Berengarius see more than the primative Fathers and Martyrs The Albigenses of France and the Anonymi more then Berengarius Peter de Bruis more than the Albigenses Baltazzar Hubmir Pacimontanus Muncer and John of Leyden more than Peter de Bruis And Mr. Tombes as a child upon these Giants shoulders sees further into childrens baptism than they all Ring the bells backward and make Horace recant his parentum pejor avis lib. 3. ode 6. That every thing degenerates Ovid and Hesiod were mistaken now is the golden age and not before It seems the promise that Christ made to the never dying corporation of his Apostles and their successors that he was with them alway even to the end of the world was not performed before That the Holy Ghost that was to lead into all truth was not sent till now We have special predictions of these latter dayes but it s such as these 2 Tim. 3. 1 2 6 7. In the last dayes perillous times shall come for men shall be lovers of their own selves covetous boasters proud blasphemers disobedient to parents unthankfull unholy c. Of this sort are they that creep into houses and lead captive silly womâ—n laden with sins led away with divers lusts ever hearing and never able to come to the knowledg of the truth Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses so do these also the truth Jude 18. 19. There should be mockers in the last time who should walk after their own ungodly lusts These be they who separate themselves sensual having not the Spirit And our Saviour himself tells us when he shall come he shall scarce find faith upon earth But that there is shining light out of Scripture and other Authors not formerly discerned about Infant-Baptism otherwise than that by opposition the truth is more cleared I fear is but a bragg like Oromazes in Plutarch who boasted he had an Egge that had included in it the happiness of the world which being broken proved a wind-egg and nothing came forth but corrupted aire I have read of a Mountebanke that bragged of a new receipt that would make dimme eyes see as perfectly as those of Lynceus who could discover the flaggs of ships from the Carthaginian to the Lilibaean shore but being applyed put them out Satan promised Eve that her eyes should be opened and that they should be as Gods knowing good and evill but it was to see their misery as the event declares John of Leyden when he awaked out of his deep sleep pretended strange revelations and new lights which ended in riding upon a blind Asse in the market place where he afterwards for his impostures suffered Male ominatis parcite verbis God grant that the end of our Anabaptists may be to their own comfort and the peace of the Church and that is the worst I wish them In answer to the fourth head of the Epistle why the Anabaptists were permitted and their books printed seing those of Arrius Dr. Pocklingtons Mr. Archers were burned he passes by the reasons there assigned which are these 1. The providence of God 2. The wisdome of the state The providence of God who suffers errours 1. That truth by opposition may more diligently be searched out 2. That the sincerity and constancy of the faithfull may be tryed 3. That impenitent and proud in spirit may be blinded and hardned The wisdome of the State that like wise Chirurgians will not launce a turgid ulcer till it be ripe A skilfull Phisitian that will not purge some floating humors till they be settled These he calls the Epistlers own ignorant surmises when they are not his own but in effect of the whole Church not ignorant surmises but the judgment of most learned men wherein consequently he accuses many former Councells Synods Harmonies of confessions Parliaments Canon Civill Statute laws many former Treatises of learned Divines and the late Assembly of ignorant surmises The true reason sayes he why their books and practise is permitted is because they have at least so much appearance of truth as is sufficient to make wise men to let them alone least they haply should fight against God This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or common allegation that the Quakers Shakers Ranters and all dissenters plead for liberty of conscience wherein are couched two words that discovers an Asses ears under a Lions skin and a poult-foot under a long mantle for he speaks not out and sayes absolutely that there is truth in their books but that there is at least so much appearance of truth not that those that oppose them fight against God but that haply that is casually they may fight against God True it is which the Philosopher saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many things appears and makes fair semblance which are but shadowes and kickshowes Copp put such a gloss and varnish upon upon his blasphemies that a Matron that cryed shame upon him before when she heard his Sophisticated reasons was convinced to be of his judgment Anabaptism is a Magazine of all subtiltie fortified and ammunitioned with all sorts of
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