Commission wherein we have First the Act Preach that is proclaime Secondly the object of the Gospel which in the Originall and other languages signifies good news or a good speech from the connexion between the Mission and Commission coming from the same Authour Christ and extended to the same persons the Apostles and their successours observe that none may Preach as Church-Officers but they that are sent in a Gospel-way our adversary in the common cause spoke so home to this that we need not press it further The last thing is the extent of the Commission and that a very large one unto every Creature as here to all Nations as Matthew Now the Quaere will be what is meant by every Creature Some limit it to every rational creature Angels men Devils as Origen and his misericordes Doctores who held the Devils and reprobates should be saved but that cannot be for 2 Pet. 2. 4. They are cast down to hell and reserved to judgement Some more strictly restrain it onely to man and that when he is come to age and understanding excluding Children this is too strict True it is Infants are not capable to be taught of men but they may be taught of God they cannot actually understand the Gospel but they may actually receive the benefit of the Gospel a noble mans Child hath interest in his Fathers â—atent and pardon a sucking Infant though he knows it not may be joined in a lease with the Parents Some extend it and it is conceived more fitly according to the Letter without any Syneedoche or figure to every creature as if he should say Goâ— and proclaim the benefit that comes by Christ to every Creature for as by the first Adam all creatures were accursed so by Christ the second Adam all creatures shall be blessed Rom. 8. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every creature groans desiring to be nelivered into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God answerable to this Preach the Gospl 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every creature telling them that they are now by Christ to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God Object But the creature cannot hear nor understand Answ It s true not properly no more could John Baptist in his Mothers Womb and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Babe sprang for joy Nay the Holy Ghost ascribes a hearing to the creature Hosea 2. 21. And it shall come to pass in that day saith the Lord I will hear the Heavens and they shall hear the Earth and the Earth shall hear the Corn and the Wine and the Oyl and they shall hear Jezreel Hence observe that every creature in a sense is sensible of the benefit they have by Christ but every one in their kind men come to years and discretion are capable of actual understanding actual profession actual faith Infants onely in actu primo are capable of the first seeds of understanding of profession of Faith which will shew it self in the fruits when they come to years The rest of our fellow-creatures as by a natural instinct they groan for the curse so by an other instinct they lift up their heads in expectation of the blessing and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an earnest expectation or a stretched out neck as the word in the originall signifies Rom. 8. 9. Thus we have paraphrased upon the first verse for introduction to the second wherein is First a Consolatory promise he that beleeveth and is Baptized shall be saved Secondly a Comminatorie Curse he that believeth not shall be damned In the former we have first the qualification and that either absolute he that beleeveth or conditional and is Baptized Q. Now the Quaere will be what belief is here meant Sol. First the event tells us that belief that saves us he that believes shall be saved Secondly the opposition its contrary to that unbelief that damns Observe that a saving faith is necessary to salvation without faith it is impossible to please God all they and onely they that have a saving Faith shall be saved so that you see that Faith is a necessary and absolute condition And is Baptized that is upon supposition if Baptism conveniently may be had hence observe that Baptism is not absolutely necessary by necessity of means as they call it as if none could be saved without it but by necessity of Precept if conveniently it may be had The Israelites for forty years in the Wilderness were not Circumcised Bernard that saw not all things could see this that non absentia sed contemptus Sacramenti damnat not the want but the contempt of the Sacrament damns Valentinian the Emperour dyed as he was going to be Baptized in Jordan and Ambrose being asked what he thought of him answered that he was Baptizatus vote voluntate etiam si non reverà aquae laâ—acrâ— Baptized inwardly with wish and will though not outwardly with the laâ—er of water Austin is conceived here to be mistaken who denyed salvation to Infants Un-Baptized hence he is called durus Pater Infantum a hard Father of Infants and many of the Doctors of the Church of Rome who hold that Infants that dye Un-Baptized are kept in limbo Infantum in a Purgatory of Infants where they shall never behold the beatifical vision Object But here is first placed Believing and then Baptized so that from the order of placing the words some would gather that we are first to Beleeve before we be Baptized Answ That will not follow for Mark 1. 4. There is placed first Baptizing and then Preaching and repentance after whence they might as well gather that we must be Baptized before we can hear the word Preached or repent Repentance in Scripture is oft placed before Faith and yet is a fruit and effect of Faith some of the Evangelists place Judas his receiving of the sop before the Sacrament some after it it is a rule in interpreting of holy Writ that Scriptura nescit prius posterius the Scripture does not alwaies observe the precise order in which things were done Q. But I beseech you consider what Faith it is that is here meant Sol. A saving Faith Must then a saving Faith be the rule of our Baptism and must we Baptize none but those we know have a saving Faith then we must Baptize none at all never any Minister upon that ground had ever Commission to Baptize any no not the Apostles for they did not infallibly know that those they Baptized had a saving Faith nay they actually Baptized many that were hypocrites as Simon Magus Alexander Hymeâ—aus Philetus and others hence observe That no rule for Baptizing in general can be gathered out of this Text And to say that none are to be Baptized but they that have a saving Faith which is the Faith that is onely here meant or none but they which make an outward profession of Faith which is not here meant is an untruth not gatherable from this Scripture
and that you know well enough but that in place of solid Satisfaction you must say something to deceive the people The Arguments I raise hence are two the first is this There shall be no more an Infant of dayes that is Infants shall not be uncapable of the seal while their age is measured by dayes as the Jâ—ws Infants that might not be Circumcised till a week had passed over them Therefore Infants new born are capable of the seal The second Argument is this The child shall dye an hundred year old that is as an hundred year old or as well a Church-member as if he were a hundred year old Therefore Children may be Baptized under the Gospell T. Mr. T. found fault with that interpretation shall dye an hundred years old that is as if an hundred years old C. He answered to take it literally would imply a contradiction for it was impossible to be a child and a hundred years old and was better than his and the Anabaptists exposition of 1 Cor. 10. 2 they were Baptized under the Cloud that is say you as if they were Baptized under the cloud when nothing hindred out they were really Baptized under the cloud And Rom. 11. 19. the branches were broken off that is say you as if they were broken off when it was both possible and apparent that they were broken off T. Then Mr. T. said it was not meant of the times of the Gospell C. To which was replyed Mr. T. will still be wiser than the Church of England and read the Contents of the Chapter The calling of the Gentiles v. 1. the Jews rejected 17. the blessed state of the new Jerusalem to the end T. Mr. T. said it was verifyed Zacha. 8. 4 Thus saith the Lord of Hosts there shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem and every man with his staff in his hand for very age and the streets of the Citie shall be full of boyes and girles playing in the streets thereof C. To which was replyed what is this to an Infant of dayes or a child dying a hundred years old when it is apparent both from the Contents and Texts that this of Zachary is meant of the Jews return from Captivity and more apparent that that of Es is meant of the state of Christs kingdome under the Gospell which I prove thus That Interpretation that brings with it absurditie untruth blasphemie is not to be admitted But to â—nterpret it of the Jews return from Captivitie brings with it absurditie untruth blasphemie Therefore it is not to be admitted T. Mr. Tombs denyed the Minor C. Which was proved in order first that it brought with it absurdity To apply the 25. verse to the return from Captivity was absurd that the wolf and the lamb should feed together and the Lion should eat straw with the bullock and dust should be the serpents meat Therefore it brought with it absurdity Secondly that it brought with it untruth But to apply the 19. v. to the return from Captivity brought with it an untruth that the voice of weeping should be no more heard in Jerusalem for it was twice destroyed after once by Antiochus then by Vespatian and Titus Therefore it brought with it an untruth Thirdly that it brought with it blasphemie for to interpret the 17. verse Behold I create new heavens and new earth and the former shall no more be remembred and come into mind of the second temple is blasphemous Therefore it brought with it blasphemie for it crosseth St. Peters interpretation 2 Pet. 3. 13. We according to his promise look for new heavens and a new earth For can any rationall man think that the new temple built at Jerusalem in Cyrus his time was this new heaven and new earth that the former should be no more remembred When the antient men are said to weep because the glory of the latter temple was short of the glory of the first Ezra 3. 12. It was inferiour to Solomons temple first in respect of the building that was lower and meaner secondly in respect of the vessels before of Gold now of Brass thirdly of five things that were lost first the Ark of God secondly the Urim and Thummim thirdly fire from Heaven to consume the Sacrifices fourthly the glory of God between the Cherubims fiftly the gift of prophesie for after the second temple there was no prophet T. Mr. T. fell to his wonted course of impertinent exposition wherein Mr. C. told him he violated the rules of dispute and did lasciviously wanton it out into a wilderness of words that the truth might be obscured or lost and like a lapwing carry the hearers far from the matter Then C. P. an Apothecary began to interpose as he had done once before till a gentleman of authorite told him that it was not fit for a man of his place and calling to speak Yet Master Tombs would not be satisfyed but went on saying that Dr. Prideaux in Oxford when a place of Scripture was cited was wont to give a large exposition C. Mr. C. Replyed that Dr. Prideaux was Doctor of the Chair and Judge of the Controversie and might do that which a Respondent may not do whose office is onely to repeat deny distinguish and when a Text is quoted to give a brief exposition that the Opponent may have something to fasten upon And what Dr. Prideaux did he knew not but what Dr. Collins and Dr. Ward did he could tell him but that it was not to the present purpose And that his judgement in this was but the same with his own University of Oxford as he knew of late by a sad experiment T. Mr. Tombes Asked what that was C. He told him an explosion not for disability for his dispute was plausible inough but that he would neither be satisfied with Dr. Salvage his answer nor the Doctor of the Chairs determination but fell to repetitions and extravagances as now Mr. Tombes launched into a tedious discourse to vindicate himself till he had tyred the Auditors who cryed out this is but to waste time And a learned Gentleman spake aloud this is but to spend the time in parling that he may avoid the gunshot for he is affraid the great thunderbold is behind and so with much adoe he was brought to dispute again where Master C. falling upon the third branch of his Argument That God did actually receive Infants to be Church-members under the Gospell began thus C. Those whom Christ commanded his disciples to Baptize they may be Baptized But Christ commanded his Disciples to Baptize infants Therefore they may be Baptized The Minor being denyed was proved thus He that commanded his Disciples to baptize all Nations commanded them to baptize infants But Christ commanded his Disciples Matth. 28. 19. to baptize all Nations Therefore Christ commanded them to baptize infants T. Mr. T. denyed the Major C. Which was proved by this Enthymema The whole includes every part Infants
not Baptism and no Baptism which will appear by the definition of Analoga They have one common name which principally is attributed to one member afterwards by similitude or proportion to others Thus Baptism is principally Sacramentall less principally Typicall washings whether ordinary the Leviticall or extraordinary this under the Cloud and in the red Sea And Analoga are twofold either of inequalitie so entitie or being is by way of perfection ascribed to God afterwards by participation to the creature Or of attribution when it is given to one member properly as health to a body to another Metonymically when it is given to the Urine as the sign to dyet as the cause of health To the later of these our Typicall Baptism may be reduced the other to neither but is Grotius his figment having not the common name And in Isaiah 65. 20. There is need of such an interpretation for as ver 17. The new heavens and new earth and 18. 19. Creation and Jerusalem were analogicall and not proper so the 20. ver is wholly Tropicall and Mysticall There shall be no more thence an Infant of dayes How can this be understood literally did not Infants after as well as under the Captivity make up their weeks of dayes months of weeks c. It must needs relate to something under the Jewish Paedogogie and nothing so probably as that of theirs that nothing was clean till a Sabboth had gone over it and therefore according to divine institution Circumcision was not till the eighth day Mr. T. might have done well to have imparted us either his own or Master Gatakers descant upon these words but because they could devise nothing that like the ears under the Lions skin would not discover the whole Imposture ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem But though he passed by that as a riddle like Davus not Oedipus yet in the words following says Master Gataker the Syntax is familiar I had thought Syntax had been Grammaticall construction according to rule not literall interpretation or univocall not analogicall praedication And this Syntax he sayes is as clear as the day-light or Sun-shine perhaps to an Owle or Bat And what is this Syntax that is so clear The Child or youth that now is shall dye the son of an hundred years that is shall be an hundred years old when he dyeth The Child or youth there is one addition for the Text mentions not youth which is a distinct age from Childhood That now is there is another the Child was not yet it was a praediction and so both an Addition and an untruth shall dye the son of an hundred years there is a third son of by addition put in old by substraction taken away excellent Arithmetick besides here is a new creation of a new generation son of years who ever heard such a Syntax did the son beget the years or the years the son or whether is elder That is shall be an hundred years old when be dyeth here is an exposition of an exposition and a fourth addition be and when being superadded According to which interpretation the words must carry this sense There shall no more Infants dye when they are young nor an old man till he hath filled his dayes for he that now is a child shall not dye till he be an hundred years old I wonder in what age this was performed that no man dyed till he had completed his Century no mortal diseases nor use of Physicians but every man might certainly know the day of his death All experience and history is contrary to this unless that of China that relates many generations before Adam as well as the contents which are justly entitled to the Church of England seeing besides the rise and spring of them every Parliament and Synod with universal acceptation did interpretatively make them so before so many millions to prefer Mr. Gataker one single man and say he understands the text as well or better than they is not onely a disparagement but praesumption I esteem of Mr. Gataker as a reverend man and a prime light of the Church yet dare not elevate him so high in the Pole with Mr. Tombes as to make him infallible nor depresse him so low as Mr. Lilly calculates him pag. 5. 6. of his Merlini Anglici Ephemeris 1654 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Truth must not be pinned upon Mr. Gataker's no nor upon Mr. Tombes sleeve though he speaks magnificently in the language of Nabucadnezzar this text was rightly made by me answerable to Zach. 8. 4. made by him and not by the Holy Ghost nor declared so by any Interpreter before him He mentions neither This is great Babel Let us hear the words Thus saith the Lord of Hosts there shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem every man with his staffin his hand for very age and the streets of the City shall be full of boyes and girls playing in the streets thereof What is this to an Infant of dayes or a child dying an hundred years old When it is apparent from the contents text and Interpreters that this of Zachary is meant of the Jewes return from captivity and more apparent that that of Isay is meant of the state of Christs Kingdom under the Gospel To interpret it otherwise notwithstanding any thing that hath been said hitherto or Mr. Gatake's notes which for brevity sake he will not transcribe bu◠keeps for a reserve ◠believe even yet includes little less than absurdity untruth Blasphemy 1. To apply the 25. v. to the return from captivity is absurd that the wolf and the lamb should feed togither and the lion should eat straw with the bullock and dust should be the serpents neat The Parallel place to which the marginal notes and Expositer◠refer it can be understood of none but Gospel-times for Isai 11. having expressed Christs lineage natures office he declares the peaceable estate of his kingdome 6. 7. The Wolfe also shall dwell with the Lambe and the Leopard shall ly down with the Kid and the Calf and the young Lyon and the fatling together and a little child shall lead them and the Cow and the Bear shall feed their young ones shall ly down together and the Lyon shall eat straw with the Oxe 2. To apply the 19. v. to the return from captivity is an untruth that the voice of weeping should be no more heard in Jerusalem for it was twice destroyed afterwards once by Antiochus then by Vespatian and Titus never rebuilded nor restored yet So that either it must be understood mystically of the conversion and fulness of the Gentiles or literally of the final calling of the Jewes 3. To apply the 17 v. to the return from captivity is blasphemous Behold I create new heavens and new earth and the former shall no more be remembred and come into mind for it crosseth St. Peters interpretation 2 Pet. 3. 13. We according to his promise look for
new heavens and new earth for can any rational man think that the new Temple built at Jerusalem in Cyrus his time was the new heaven and the new earth that the former should be no more remembred When the antient men are said to weep because the glory of the latter Temple was short of the glory of the first Ezra 3. 11. Mr. Tombes 13. Section WHat I said about Dr. Prideaux his use was true and that he would require the respondent afore he answered to read the Text and consider it which is necessary in divinity disputes however Respondents be restrained in other Disputes And for my Explosion at Oxford it is a meer figment and that neither Dr. Savage nor the Doctor of the Chair did avoid my Argument by their Answer is manifest enough from Dr. Savage his own recital of his answer in his printed book and this had been shewed in print ere this but that the Printer failed to print mine Answer in the fit time The frivolous conceit of my fear of Mr. C. gunshot is foolish I do not count Mr. C. Arguments to be of so much force as a Squib Reply THe first words about Dr. Prideaux his use he brings in like a fragment seemingly having no dependance of the foregoing or following discourse concerning which the Reader must be informed that from answering Mr. T. fell to moderating and magisterially determining of the Question that before he would resigne the chaire I was forced to tell him that he violated the rules of dispute and did lasciviously wanton it out into a wilderness of words that the truth might be obscured or lost and like a lapwing carry the hearers far from the mater Then his Apologie was that Dr. Prideaux when a place of Scripture was cited was wont to give a large Exposition To which was then replyed that he was Dr. of the Chaire and Judge of the contâ—oversie and might do that a Respondent may not do whose office is onely to repeat deny distinguish and when a Text is quoted to give a brief Exposition that the Opponent may have some thing to fasten upon Now he asserts that what he said of Dr. Prideaux his use was true that he would require the Respondent before he answered to read the Text and consider it which I do not deny but that de facto it was done de jure it ought to have been done not onely though principally in dâ—vinity Disputes but even in Philosophie and Mathematicks when the Argument depends upon the authority or meaning of Aâ—istotle Plato Euclide or the like But that any mention was made thereof in the Dispute I do not remember for there he spoke of Dr. Prideaux his practise in his own person not what he willed in the person of the Respondent Besides it is one thing to require the Respondent before his answer to read the Text and consider it another thing to suffer the Respondent after he hath spun out his Answer to a long thread to enforce his own sense upon the Chapter and determine the Question And though it may be true it was his use that he required the Respondent before he answered to read the Text yet I am sure it is as true that he would not require the Opponent before the framing of his Syllogism to read more than he drew his Argument from for neglect of which he unjustly accuses me of fallacie What he means by Explosion or a meer figment I know not this I know that when he would not be satisfied with Dr. Savage his Answer nor the Professors determination but fell to repetition exploserunt saltem juniores not once but again at his nâ—â— answering the Drs. challenge Though perhaps Mr. Tombes was so harnessâ—d with confidence that he was not sensible of it Vos ô Patricius sanguis quos vivere fas est Occipiti â—aeco posticae occurrite sannae Pers Satyr 1. And such Explosions are grounded upon equitie because those that will not acquiess in the Vicechancellors or Professerâ— determinations by the University statutes are to be admonished But he unmindfull of this like Chrysogonus whom Tully for the like cause calls nobilem egâ—egium gladiatorem speaks in the language of a Fencer saying that neither Dr. Savage nor the Dr. of the Chaire did avoid his Argument by their Answer is manifest enough from Dr. Savage his own reciâ—al of his Answer in his printed book Sed quo judice Who shall be Uâ—pâ—re in this debate Mr. Tombes himself for he sayes that this had been shewed in print ere this but that the Printer failed to print his Answer in the fit time How much was that Printer to blame that would not expedite that Canon that must regulate the whole Church in opposition to harmonies of confessions Assemblies of Divines determinations of Universities Frange lâ—ves calamos scinde Thalia libellos Si dare c. Mart. But he fâ—lls off â—rom vying with his sword and buckleâ— whereby he avoyded the Drs. Arguments to vaunt his coat of Male as if he had got Vulcan's Panoplâ—e and were shot free for he sayes the frivolous conceit of his fear of my gun-shot is foolish In some sense I confesse its true for he that will not fear the whole Church terrible as an Army with Banners will not tremble at the shot of one private souldier But that in another sense he feared was apparent both from his abrupt breaking off the Dispute and refusing further engagement And for all he counts not my Arguments to be of so much force as a squib his eyes may be opened one day to see his whole Magazine blown up thereby as it is to manifest his patience is already by which he might have possessed his soul one dram whereof is to be preferred before the Vatican Library full of such volumes as his Master Tombes 14. Section AS for his Argument from Mat. 28 19. I answered that all Nations or whole Nations did not include every part all Nations being taken Synecdochically for the Disciples of all Nations As for his Division I gave the genuine reason why Infants are excepted from the precept of baptizing because they are no Disciples Nor was there any defect in Logick when I did not reduce it to one of his members For capable of Baptism and Disciples are not terms subordinate but distinct though without opposition And though to be Disciples made them capable yet there is a difference between the terms I presume Mr. C. thinks baptized persons already Disciples yet not capable of Baptism Reply HAving dispatched the two former branches of mine Argument That God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law I came unto the third That God did actually receive Infants to be Church-members under the Gospel that they might be baptized thus Those whom Christ commanded his Disciples to baptize they may be baptized Christ commanded his Dâ—sciples to baptize Infants Therefore they may be baptized The Minor being denied was proved