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
my attention and to make some ostentation of himself I replyed not to his vain talk but called for Scripture proof Reply THe Argument drawn from the Essence of Baptism was not a new one as he mistakes but a continuation and confirmation oâ— the former for when after four Syllogisms orderly proposed he had no way of evasion but petere principium to fly back to his first Sanctuary I was forced again to prove the consecution of thâ— propositions that they were both actually true especially that iâ— controversie that some Infants may be baptized which I diâ— thus To whom belongs the Essence of Baptism they may be baptized to some Infants belongs the Essence of Baptism ergo some Infants may be baptized Here he confesses he denyed the Minor where he should have denyed the Major And which is worse though he perceived by my next Syllogism he was mistaken he could not recall himself by reason of my quickness and multiplying words would not permit him pittifull figge leaves Did not he first heare the Argument from me and then repeat it himself what quickness Is not the Syllogism briefly couched that took away his Minor what multiplying of words But now he makes amends and repaires the loss by a distinction of a twofold Essence of Baptism which is a meer Cymera or rather an Ens fictum impossible never heard before for as Ens is unum but one so Essentia una essence is but one who ever read of this new Divinity and Metaphysicks that the essence of Baptism belonging to Infants may have two senses First as he glosses it that the baptism of Infants is true Baptism that is according to transcendental verity such as hath the nature of Baptism And in this sense he grants the proposition is true that the essence of Baptism belongs to Infants The other sense is the essence of Baptism that is that which is of the essence to the right administration of Baptism belongs to Infants in which sense he sayes he denyes that the essence of Baptism belongs to Infants as if the essence were not indivisible that they that had one part had all wanted one part wanted all For as Eustachius hath it Metaphys pag. 21. every created essence consists of parts Physical or Metaphysical eatenus tamen dicuntur indivisibiles quod nulla sit natura quae secundum naturam specificam inaequaliter participetur ab individuis Therefore essences are called indivisible because there is nothing of nature that according to the specifical reason may be unequally participated of Individuals As appears by induction humane nature belongs not more to one man than another so that one man cannot more be said to be a man than another and he gives a reason because nothing that belongs to the essence of a thing can be added or withdrawn but presently the nature and essence is changed whence Aristotle Metaphys 8. cap. 3. Tom. 10. compares essences to numbers to which if we add or substract but an union the same specifical number is changed hence the result is if the essence of Baptism belongs to Infants then indivisibly and equally to them with those of riper age but Mr. Tombes being Judge the essence of Baptism according to Transcendental verity belongs to Infants therefore Baptism belongs indivisibly and equally to Infants with them of riper years Neither will his parallel instance relieve him that Infants eating bread and drinking wine is true eating and drinking the Lords Supper and have the essence of it which is his groundlesse dictate and hath no truth in it for upon supposition that Infants are excluded the Lords Supper in the divine institution which is the fundament and gives being to the relation they are no more capable of the essence and true eating of the Lords Supper while Infants than degs and mice which how ridiculously the Canonists of the Church of Rome Dispute whether they eat the Lords Supper or no every man of common sense knowes As for the other part of the distinction which he also calls the essence of Baptism it is so farr from being the essence of it as his own terms right administration implies that it is but an accidental perfection superadded to the essence If his distinct on had been of the truth of Baptism it might have had some ground in it though not as applyed to Infants for as the Church of Rome and other Churches that holds the fundamentals according to Bishop Hall and Davenant are true Churches in transcendental verity but in relation to their erronious superstructions they are not true Churches eatenus in moral verity Baptism with water in the Church administred by a Priest in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is true Baptism in Transcenâ—ental verity though in respect of their additions of salt spittle exorcism and other superstitious circumstances morally not true But Baptism of Bells is neither Transcendentally nor morally true much lesse have they thâ— essence of Baptism as wanting the fundament which is the root of the entâ—tie Whereas Mr. Tombes confesses Infants may have the essence of Baptism or that it belongs to them which the Argument from the definâ—tion further proves in forme thus To whom belongs the definition of Baptism to them belongs the essence to some Infants belongs the definition of Baptism therefore to some Infants belongs the essence This is no Identical probation or all one as he sayes as to argue Infant-Baptism is Baptism therefore it is right Baptism it is not Identical for an Argument taken from the definition is a demonstration â priori notiori from the former and better known It is not all one to argue Infant-Baptism is Baptism therefore it is right Baptism but it concludes Infant-Baptism is Baptism therefore Infants may be baptized which is the Question by this inference put out of Question And if we make a deeper Scrutinie into the parts of the definition we shall find that their Baptism is right Baptism and that Infants may rightly be baptized for the entire definition of Baptism comprehends in its wombe these parts 1. The fundament which is the divine Institution infolding Infants in all Nations in several families 2. The principal cause the Holy Ghost of which they are capable what then can forbid water 3. The Instrumental cause the Minister whose commission extends to them go baptize all Nations 4. The matterial cause water of which Christian children are as capable as the Jewish children were of Circumcision 5. The formal cause also into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost 6. Tho correlative Christ of whose Union children are receptive 7. The final cause grace and glory from which they cannot be excluded for to such belongs the Kingdom of God And this is the Argument perticularised by which I proved the definition of Baptism belonged to Infants thus The definition of Baptism as of all other relations is made up of the fundament correlative and Termini but all these three
the root that is the parents the lump the branches that is the Children and posterity And Rom 11. 17. if the Jews were broken off and the Gentiles graffed into their place it will follow that if the Jews were broken off Parents with Children then the Gentiles shall be graffed in Parents with Children But the Jews were broken off Parents with Children Therefore the Gentiles shall be graffed in Parents with Children 9. Arg. If Infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel many dangerous absurdities would follow First Infants would be losers by the comming of Christ and be put in a worse condition than the Jewish Infants were they with the Parents were admitted to the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision and not Children with Parents to Baptism Secondly if Infants should be in Covenant then and not now Grace would be larger under the Law than under the Gospel Thirdly there would be no difference betwixt the Child of a Christian and of a Pagan but all the Infants of Christians would be as vile as the Children of Turks Tartars or Cannibals Fourthly they would be without God without Christ without hope in the world not the Children of God but of the Devil would all be damned for out of Covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation 10. Arg. Lastly that which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawful But Infant-Baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times Therefore Infant-Baptism is lawful We 'l begin with the first Centurie or hundred years after Christ Dionysius the Areopagite whom the Apostles converted at Athens says Holy men have received a Tradition from the Fathers that is the Apostles to Baptize Infants Clemens who is recorded by some of the antients to succeed Peter in his Ministry at Rome says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptzie your Infants Irenaeus who lived in the second Century says Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake that little ones might be received into Covenant Origen that lived in the beginning of the third Century says The Church received a Tradition from the Apostles to Baptize Infants and gives a reason because they are born in impurity of sin nay 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 Original 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 Cyprian in the fourth Century confirms it in his Epistle to Fidus and gives an account of a Council of sixty six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be Baptized Ambrose says because every age is lyable to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism Nazianzene says it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism though they know it not than to leave them unsealed Austin is conceived to go too far who denyed possibility of salvation to them that died un-baptized pressing that place John 3. 5. Except a Man be Born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God The Millevitan Councel in the fifth Century decreed That whosoever should deny that Infants even taken from their Mothers wombs might not be Baptized should be accursed All Churches All ages since agree in this the Harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches the Church of England in the Apologie the old Catechism the twenty seventh Article the Directory the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines the late Parliament by a further Declaration all confirm it The Canons of our Church did not only in former times declare but the Lawes of our Land did punish Anabaptists as hereticks Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments approves of the Albigenses Waldenses Wickliffists Lollards Poor men of Lyons Brownists Barrowists as members of the Reformed Churches but wholly excludes the Anabaptists as erring fundamentally I 'le say no more for confirmation of this polemicall discourse but wind up all with a word of exhortation I beseech you brethren consider what a dangerous errour this is that robbs 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 That is the mother of many other errours hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Shakers Levellers they that are above Ordinances Antiscripturians An errour that God hath expressed many signall judgments against as Sleiden and Gastius in Germany and some of our worthies in England have declared As reverend Mr. Cotton tells one of his Apostated flock that had his house burned and his Children in it No wonder that fire seised upon his house and God denyed water to quench it who denyed that water should be brought to Baptize his Infants Secondly consider that much benefit redounds both to Parents and Children by Infant-Baptism First much comfort comes hereby to the Parents when they consider Gods free grace to them and theirs that he is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Hebr. 11. 16. Secondly much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism which the Devill knowes well when he causes Witches to renounce their Baptism when they enter into Covenant with him for they are thereby addmitted into the bosome of the Church devoted and consecrated unto God his Name is put upon them they wear his Royall badge and by it they are distinguished from Heathens And this is so clear from Scriptures truly and spiritually understood That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Now the God of Peace and Truth by his Spirit lead us into all truth keep us pure and unspotted in this houre of Englands temptation and triall keep us faithfull to the death that so we may receive a crown of life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE Arraignment and Conviction OF ANABAPTISM The first Part. Mr. Tombes 1 Section A Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists against the vanity and falshood of scribled papers Entituled The Anabaptists Anatomiz'd and silenc'd in a publick Dispute at Abergaveny in Monmothshire Sept. 5. 165◠betwixt John Tombes John Cragge and Henry Vaughan touching Infant-Baptism By John Tombes B. D. Job 11. 2 3. Should not the multitude of words be answered And should a man full of talk be justified Should thy lies or devices make men hold their peace And when thou mockest shall no man make thee ashamed To be sold at the signe of Sir John Old-castle in Py-Corner Reply A Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists and why Does Mr Tombes intend to commence a suit against the Universal Church and to overthrow the divine institution of Infant-Baptism with the Antiquity Vniversality and Succession thereof Let him first consider whether his Action will hold Plea and whether there may not be
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
snow is black But he hath also a snatch at me saying that I shewed my heedlesness when I said it was an Addition to the Text that the Gentiles should bring the Jews well let that be examined An addition may be two wayes either in words so it is apparent for the Text says not that the Gentiles shall bring the Jews Or in sense and so it is not said the Gentiles shall bring thy Children by naturall generation which I conceive is the Question but their own But he sayes the very distinction of thy Children from the Gentiles shews it meant of the Jews otherwise it should have been their Children in the third person not thine in the second here is vindice cuneo nodus dignissimus a knot that one may unty with his gloves on They the Gentiless shall bring thy sons that is Sons of the Church and yet the Gentiles Children But who ever interpreted it thus A great writer 1. Tombs B. D. in his Plea for Antidaedobaptists pag. 14. for these are his words The Church is spoken to observe not the Jews and the Children were both the Gentiles Children and yet thy Children that is the Churches Now who shewed his heedlesness But in the same blindfold posture he goes on saying it can not be meant of Gods Children as his for then it should be mine in the first person for God speaks those words Here is an Excellent Grammar-lecture of the distinction of persons for which the Author merits to be Terrae filius the next year But let us look back It cannot be meant of Gods Children â—ayes he as his for then it should be mine in the first person for God speaks those words well God sayes to Moses thy Children which thou hast brought out of Egypt it can not be meant of Gods Children for God speaks the words This is a fallacie a dicto seeundum quid ad simpliciter All this may be easily reconciled They are the Churches Children by spirituall succession the Gentiles by naturall generation Gods by adoption But we might have spared our labour all this while for he denyes not but the words may be accommodated to the times of the Gospel This is something that he is contented with the Adulterous woman that the Child shall be divided and we shall have part but the true Mother will either have all or none How accommodated to the times of the Gospel If â—lterally then not to any historicall thing under the Law If Mystically then it was a Prophesie of a prophesie But without further enquirie this grant is enough for my purpose though not of bringing Infants to Baptism which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another Question yet to prove the Proposition in Question that God foretold that Infants should be Church-members under the Gospel whence Infant-baptism will follow and this hath so much colour from the Text That Master T. for all his experience can put no other colour upon it for if by his own confession it be a prophecie that the Gentiles should bring back the Jews not onely Infants but others from captivity in the letter and type It will follow the Gentiles shall bring back not onely children but others from spirituall captivity in the Mystery and Antitype which his words unawares of him seems to carry when he stiles them the Gentiles Children that is the Churches And this will further appear by considering my answers to his Questions put out Socratically to entangle me and cunningly to darken the Text. Mr. Tombes 11. Section FOr 1. If by standard be meant baptism which the Scripture never calls Gods standard and the bringing should be to Baptism then the sense should be that supreme Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bring Infants in their Arms and carry them on shoulders to Baptism which no story ever mentions to have been done and is too frivolous to be made the matter of that Prophecy 2. The terms nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers shew it to be a Metaphor which Mr. C. granting though it follow not that nothing could be gathered from it yet it follows that Mr. C. application which is according to the proper sense of the words is not right What I said that it was fulfilled in Hesters time I said rightly and Mr. Gataker before me in those annotations of his which are taken for the most incomparably learned and Hâ—ster as a Queen among the Gentiles might well be stiled a nursing Mother to the Jews I will not trouble my self to examine Mr. C. dictates but refer the Reader to the notes of Master Gataker As for that I said that though it should be understood of the times of the Gospel yet it might be meant of growen men perswaded by the preaching of the Gospell as Jun us in his Annot. was true Nor doth the bringing in the bosome being a Metaphor proves they were Infants And if so the Church is spoken to and the Children were both the Gentiles Children and yet â—hy children that is the Churches And so there is no interfering in my words Reply AS it is a Stratagem in War when an Army is brought into a strait and finds it self over-matched with Quintus Fabiâ—â— to parly till they have found an advantage and then suddainly to fall upon the enemy So it is the Trick of a Sophister when he is at a loss in dispute to aske Questions to ensâ—are the aâ—versarie and then with Crocodile â—leights supprise him Mr. T. is very dexterous in this art which he exercised in the dispute asking what I understood by Standard what by Kings what by nursing Fathers I told him that it was not his place to dispute Socratically by asking of Questions but to answer ad oppositum But to give him satisfaction which I needed not by Standard I understood visible holding out of Gospel-Ordinances as Baptism c. By Kings supreme Magistrates By nursing Fathers and Nursing Mothers Patrons and Protectors of the Gospel Now to put a gloss upon his counterfâ—t wares he sayes these Questions were put out needfully to clear the Text that it had no colour for bringing Infants to Baptism whereas he should have said to be visible Church members under the Gospel For 1. sayes he if by Standard be meant Baptism which the Scripture never dalls Standard and the bringing should be to Baptism then the sense should be that supreme Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bring Infanâ—s in their Arms and carry them on shoulders to Baptism which no story ever mentions to have been done and is too frivolous to be made the matter of that prophecie In which word there is neither verity nor consequence if sense Fiâ—st he sayes if by Standard be meant Baptism who makes a Thesis oâ— his Hypothesis or affirms that by Standard is meant Baptism My answer was that by Standard was meant some visible Gospel-Ordinance as Baptism c. to wit preaching praying with many more Now who knows not that there is a difference betwixt Gospel-Ordinances
earth and lick up the dust of their feet 23. Isles are summoned in the first verse which must be meant of the time of the Gospel Christ is promised to be given for a light for the Gentiles that he may be their salvation to the end of the earth 6. Kings shall see and arise Princes also shall worship 7. And the Holy Ghost quotes verbatim and applyes to the times of the Gospel the 8. verse and that expresly â— Corint 6. 2. There is an implyed cutting off of the Jews 20. And ingrafting in of the Gentiles the children of the wâ—ld Olive into the stock of the naturall Olive 21. A bringing of Children to visible Ordinances 22. In the dispute by dâ—nt of Argument and push of Syllogisticall Pike being forced to surrender up his former hold Mr. T. endevoured to make good this retreat that if it should be understood of the times of the Gospel yet by sons in arms and daughters upon shoulders was meant grown men for any thing he knew men and women of an hundred years of age might be carryed in arms and upon Shoulders Now he sayes though it should be understood of the times of the Gospel yet it might be understood of grown men perswaded by the Preaching of the Gospel as Jnius in his Annotations The force of the Argument is this Junius sayes so therefore it is so I deny both the Antecedent and the Consequent The Antecedent for Junius says not so his words are theses cum vexillo Evangelii quod est Dei potentia ad salutem haec omnia allegoricè dicuntur de amplitudine regni Christi spiritualis with the Standard of the Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation all these things are spoken Allegorically of the amplitude of Christs Kingdom but he doth not say that the bringing of children in arms should be understood of growen Children capable of instruction when it may be literally understood And if Junius had said so his Judgement is not infallible which is the Consequent Mr. T. might have found more than Junius to interpret it of the Gospel which though some extend it further than Children yet none exclude Children Cornelius à Lapide in his Commentary upon the place sayes erigam manu pocentia mea signum c. I will advance by my hand and power a sign that is a Standard of the Cross of Christ and to that and the tents of my Church I will call all Gentiles God speaks as a Generall of holy war with him agrees Hierom Cyril and Haymo They shall bring thy sons in arms saith Cyril and thy daughters upon shoulders that is the Apostles and the propagators of the faith shall not impose the grievous yoke of Moses Law upon the faithfull but shall nurse them as Infants with the sweet milk of the Gospell and shall carry them in arms and upon shoulders that is saith he shall bring them with all motherly care to the Church idem facient parentes fidelium the Parents of the faithfull shall do the same verse 23. erunt reges Nutrici tui Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omenim Kings shall be thy nursing Fathers that is thy Stewards and Guardians as if he should say O Church Kings shall nurse thee and enrich thee with their goods as a Father and Mother do nourish their Infants Aliqui haec accipiunt de Cyro Dario sayes a Lapide some understand these of Cyrus and Darius but it is apparent by the word that they are to be restrained to the Gospel Hence we may gather that according to the Judgement of these men Hierom Cyril Haymo and Cornelius a Lapide 1. That it concerns Gospel-times 2. That it may be extended to grown men 3. That it excludes not but includes Infants for all these were for their visible Church-membership and Baptism By this it appears that bringing in the bosome if it should be a metaphor proves they were Infants though not onely Infants for mine intention was onely to prove that Infants were visible Church-members and baptizable but not onely they excluding all others And this to be the true meaning methinks he seems to be conscious when he sayes if so the Church is spoken to and the children were both the Gentiles children and yet thy children that is the Churches and so there is no interfering in my words This is like all the rest for if it be the Gentiles converted Christians not Persian potentates Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius Ahasuerus that shall bring by virtue of a Gospell-covenant not by civill favours from Paganism not Babylonish captivity to Gospel-ordinances not to repair Jerusalem Thy sons that is the Churches by a spirituall succession not the Jews by naturall generation then it must needs clash with his former that it was a prophecie that the Gentiles should bring back the Jews not onely Infants but others from captivity Mr. Tombes 12. Section THe next Text was Isaiah 65. 20. in reading which Mr. C. left out those words nor an old man that hath not filled his dayes nor would read them nor the words following ver 21. 22. I perceived he meant nothing but fallacie and yet he addes impudence to it in accusing me as urging it to deceive the peoples when his own course in concealing what should have cleared the Text had a manifest shew of deceit and mine of plain dealing As for his interpretation There shall be no more an Infant of daies that is Infants shall not be uncapable of the seal it hath no proof but his dictate and it is Without all shew of probabillity there being not a word of any such thing as outward ordinances but of peace increase possession and long life as the verses before and after shew The like is to be said of his interpretation of the other part of the verse The child shall dy an hundred years old that is as an hundred years old or as well a Church-member as if he were a hundred years old when the Term as is added to the Text. To which he replyed that I do put in as 1. Cor. 10. 2. and Rom. 11. â—19 But this latter is false I grant I do so interpret it Baptized 1. Cor. 10. 2. Because otherwise the proposition were not true and the sense is plain according to his sense were Baptized that is their passage through the sea and under the cloud was to them as if they had been Baptized and so did Grotius expound it which is the same with that which others mean when they say they were Analogically Baptized But in Isaiah 65. 20. There is no need of such an interpretation and that I may use the words of Mr. Gataker's Annot. on Isaiah 65. 20 The Syntax is familiar and as clear as the day-light or sun-shine The child or youth that now is shall dy the son of an hundred years that is shall be an hundred years old when he dyeth Nor is it contrary to the Contents which though they be entitled to the