person in that which he calls the outward visible part of the blessing by which he means title to Baptis But I denyed the Minor understanding it of the outward Covenant holiness as they call it which I truly said is gibberish and however Vossius Bullinger for Grotius I think means otherwise conceive of it or the Assembly yet it is a meâ—r mystake and that holyness of Children which is mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14. is truly said by me to be onely Matrimonial holyness or legitimation And his Argument out of Mr. Baxter I justly retorted that in six hundred times in which holy is used in Scripture in none of them it is found for outward Covenant holiness intiluling to Baptism which is a right way of answering though it be called indirect by the Logicians And as for that he replyes that Rom. 11. 16. I confessed at Ross Covenant holiness is meant I grant it but not outward Covenant holiness intiluling to Baptism but that reall saving holiness which is according to the election of grace according to which Jews elected shall hereafter be graffed in again Reply THat the promise belonged to Infant Children was thus further â—videnced The blessing is as large as the curse but the curse was extended even to Children before they could actually believe his blood be upon us and upon our children Therefore the blessing To this he accommodates now no answer but instead thereof bolts out this Question doth he think that Christs blood was not avenged on thâ—m if it were how was the remedy as large as the disease how satisfactorily let any intelligent man Judge Christs blood was avenged upon the murdering Jews and their Infant children therefore does he think it was not extendable to the believing Jews and their Infant-children Reason dictates the contrarie His evasion in the conference was more colourable thus If by blessing was meant the Inward and spirituall part of the covenant it might be true but that was not to the present purpose seeing it is not known to us but if the outward and visible part he denyed that Infants were capable of the blessing as well as liable to the curse which distinction was thus taken away They that are holy with a Covenant holiness are capable of the outward visible part of the blessing But Infants of believers are holy with a Covenant holiness Therefore they are capable of the outward and visible part Of this Syllogism he sayes he might have denyed the Major It s strange a man should be more absurd upon deliberation than on a sudden as is evident he is by his reason for sayes he there is a Covenant holiness according to election which doth not alwaies instate the person in that which I call the outward part of the blessing by which I mean title to Baptism what he means by this Centaur of Covenant-holiness by election is hard to conjecture whether of elect Infants before they be born or of elect Infidels before they be called or of believers or unbelievers sanctified Infants before profession If he mean it of elect Infants before they be born it is ridiculous seeing the subject of the Question is Infants of believers they that are actually in being not a subject in posse without an Accident an Accident in posse without a subject at the best but ens fictum possibile If he mean elect Infidels before they be called how are they holy that have nothing in them but the old Adam It seems holy Saul while he was a persecutor holy Dionysius while a Heathen Philosopher holy 3000. Jews while they were crucifying Christ If he mean of unbelievers or believers sanctified Infants first let me enquire of him what groudn he hath from Scripture or any divine Revelation that Infants of unbelievers are sanctified that there is salvation out of the visible Church that any such aâ—â— promised to be so qualified till professors Every act of Faith hath for its object Gods promise or Revelation and whatsoever is not of Faith even in this sense is sin Secondly for the sanctified holiness of believers Infants according to election if he mean that they are elected to for the future and have not yet that cannot denominate them holy if he mean that holiness of election they enjoy for the present Master T. confesses that holyness makes them capable of the outward visible part of the blessing and intitles them to baptism and that if he knew they were so qualified he would baptize them The Question is not whom he according to his light may baptize but who are baptizable But he knew that my proposition pointed at none of these and therefore idely beat the air as his next words discovers for he sayes he denyed the Minor understanding it and so did I of outward Covenant holiness upon which he bestows two taunts 1. As they call it 2. That he truly said that it was gibberish yet confesses that Vossius Bullinger and the late assembly did so conceive of it To these he might have joyned all the Harmonies of confessions of Reformed Churches Tertullian de anima Cap. 39. Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativa quam ex institutionis disciplina caeterum inquit immundi nascerentur quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios ut bujus spei pignora matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinarentur The Apostle sayes he avers they may be procreated holy of either sex being sanctified as well of the Prerogative of the seed as the Discipline of education otherwise he sayes they would be born unclean willing the children of the faithfull to be understood as designed to holiness and consequently salvation that he might maintain the pledges of this hope to marriages which he judged to be retained Junius upon these words quasi designatos glosses thus alludit ad priscum Rom. morem qui ante annum ferm◠〈◊〉 Praetores alios designabant quam inirent Magistratum c. he al 〈…〉 es â—â—yes he to the antient Roman custome who designed alm 〈…〉 ear before they entred their Office Consuls Praetors and other Magistrates So that the sense is the children of the faithfull to be as it were designed to holiness and consequently salvation even as Magistrates were wont to be designed here in the Church they are designed by a common call there in heaven they enter glory by a singular call and benefit Athanasius in his 114. Question being asked whether Infants dying go to be punished or to the Kingdom says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your children are holy and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infants of believers that are baptized enter into Heaven Hugo Grotius Mr. T. his great friend for all he vainly thinks he means otherwise here forsakes him saying non loquitur Apostolus de sanctitate naturali c. The Apostle sayes he speaks not of naturall holiness and inhering to the nature of
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
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
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
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
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
made them believers in fieri with an incompleat repentance though perhaps not in facto what then verse 40. he exhorted them with more words than are in Lukes abbreviation but not than were in the sermon upon hearing of which sermon some of them gladly received the word and were believers by acceptation to entertain Christ but by justification to be implanted into him is more than he knows Peter said not unto them before they were believers that is accepters the promise is to you and your children every circumstance in the Text makes it clear that as soon as they were believers their children were in covenant with them and to be baptized be baptized every one of you for the covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for the present to you and your children and to them that are afar off to wit the Gentiles aliens in affection when God shall call them Parents with children for the future Mr. Tombes 10. Sect. HIs second Argument is such as were circumcised under the Law may be baptized under the Gospel But infants of believers were circumcised under the Law Therefore they may be baptized under the Gospel He cites Whitaker saying all the Anabaptists shall not be able to resist this Argument I answer notwithstanding so learned a mans conceit it hath not the force of a feather so as to need resistance To it I answer 1. Indirectly by retortion Such as were circumcised under the Law may be baptized under the Gospel But infants of unbelievers as the males bought with Abraham ' s money of the stranger not of his seed Gen. 17. 12 13 23. 27. persons out of covenant as Ishmael Gen. 17. 19. 21. 25. were circumcised under the Law Ergo if the one be irresistible so is the other 2. Directly by denying the Major if it be universall if not the Syllogism is nought concluding from particulars His proofâ— are vain That from Austin is of no force unless it be supposed 1. That by circumcising under the Law and baptizing under the Gospel the grace of God is conferred which is a Popish conceit Circumcision did bind to the keeping of the Law but never that I find is the grace of God said to be either physically or morally conferred by the circumcision of each person rightly circumcised 2. It supposeth if infants be not baptized the grace of God is straiter in the new Testament than in the old But that is false for the grace of God is as much without Sacraments as with it Above two thousand years before Abraham was circumcised there was neither circumcision nor baptism of infants nor any other Sacrament instead thereof shall we say that Gods grace was straiter before Abraham ' s time than since As bad as the Schoolmen were who gave too much to Sacraments yet they held That the grace of God is not tyed to Sacraments Reply MY second Argument was such as were circumcised under the Law may be baptized under the Gospel But Infants of believers were circumcised under the Law therefore they may be baptized under the Gospel for this I cited learned Whitaker saying huic Argumento non omnes Anabaptistae resistent All the Anabaptists shall not be able to resist this Argument This Antagonist flights him calling it his conceit that hath not the force of a feather so as to need resistance as mine before not of a squib high towring words Proijcit ampullas sesquipedalia verba Reverend Bishop Hall sayes of him who ever saw him without reverence or heard him without admiration Learned and pious Doctor Arrowsmith gave him this Enconium the last Commencement at Cambridge Egregie Whitakerus ut in omnibus yet this fore-house in the Anabaptists tearm as Mr. Carpenter calls him as if he had the Monopoly of plumes allows not his Arguments that astonished Cardinals the force of a feather To it he sayes he answers 1. Indirectly by retortion but indeed proves directly for me Such as were circumcised under the Law may be baptized under the Gospel But Infants of unbelievers as the Males bought with Abrahams money of the stranger not of his seed Gen. 17. 12 13. 23. 27. persons out of covenant as Ishmael Gen. 17. 19. 21. 25. were circumcised under the Law Ergo if the one be irresistible so is the other I yield all the premises being truly understood for children of unbelievers if under Christians tuition are capable of baptism we plead education as well as birth-right Those that are out that is that have not the covenant established to posterity with Ishmael may be baptized Ishmael was not out of the outward and visible covenant which is the Question nor as Luher thinks out of the invisible though his posterity apostated and Christ came not out of his loyns which if he deny one branch of his Copulative Minor is false and according to his own rule renders the whole untrue and his conclusion not deducible 2. He says he answers directly by denying the Major if universall whereas his own former instance have demonstrated it universally true My proofs are convincing That from Austin is of force Mutatis signis manet eadem gratia sine aetatis discrimine the outward visible signs being changed the same grace remains without difference of age and is vainly supposed by him that therefore 1. by circumcising under the Law and baptizing under the Gospell the grace of God is conferred otherwise than sacramentally and signally according to divine institution which is no Popish conceit Circumcision did no more bind to the keeping of the Morall Law than doth Baptism both beings seals of the righteousness of faith nor do we nor did Austin upon more mature thoughts find that the grace of God was either Physically or Morally conferred by the circumcision of each person rightly circumcised nor do the Papists by baptisâ— for some may ponere obicem we say further it s conferred on none either Physically or Morally and yet conferred sacramentally according to the nature of the union of the sign and thing signed or signified 2. It justly supposeth if Infants be not baptized the grace of God is straiter in the new Testament than in the old which is true for the grace of God according to the Oeconomie or dispensation under the Gospell is not ordinarily conferred without sacraments Gods administration of the Church before Abrahams time without Scripture and sacraments is no president to us who must follow the present rule and concludes as well for Antiscripturians as Antipaedobaptists God dispâ—nsed grace before Abraham without sacraments because it was his pleasure not so since at least to the contemners of sacraments for the same reason Schoolmen gave not so much to the right use of the sacraments it seems as Mr. T. does to the sacrilegious abuse who confesses he asserted in his Sermon all that would be saved must be baptized after profession that is baptized again though they were baptized when Infants Mr. Tombes 11. Section THat Question from Hebr. 8.
will not stand them so much in stead as to admit them to the Lords Supper be such an inestimable treasure as is not recompensed with the glory of the Gospel now exhibited to spiritual persons in spiritual benefits by the spirit in stead of the carnal promises ordinances and Church state of the Law Reply THe ninth Argument is drawn from many dangerous absurdities that would follow if children should be ouâ— of visible Covenant under the Gospel it being all one to be baptizable or baptized and to be in vâ—sible Covenant none are in visible Covenant but are or may be baptized all that are baptized are in visible covenant The absurdities are these Infants would be loosers by Christs coming and in worse condition than the Jewish Infants were they with the parents were admitted to the seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision and not parents with children to baptism Mr. T. his Answer is frivolous and impertinent saying he rather thinks that by being not admitted to circumcision the condition of parents and children is the better by Christs coming which I grant but it is nothing to the purpose our condition under the Gospel is better than theirs under the Law theirs under the law infinitly better than the heathens which had not circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith Christians Infants if they had not baptism were worse than Jewes Infants no better than Pagans Circumcision was the yoke Acts 15. 10. of which the Apostle said neither we nor our fathers were able to bear it that seale or ordinance by which the Jewes were bound to observe the ceremonial Law of Moses and yet a rite that under that troublesome Oconomy sealed the righteousnesse of faith in Christ to come baptism under an easier yoke seals Christ that is come Secondly it s acknowledged though Baptism and other Sacraments be pure Evangelical priviledges yet they are not such priviledges but parents and children did well without them as well as without Scriptures before Abraham's time all the femals from Abraham's time till Christ that were without actualâ— but not virtual circumcision What then May we therefore cast away Scriptures with the Anti Scripturians cast off baptism with them above ordinances Tempora distingâ—â—e tutus eris There was first a time without ordinances then a time of legal now a time of Gospel-ordinances And those priviledges of the Law what ever they were are abundantly recompensed by Christs coming and the Gospel-ordinances he instituted whereof Infant-baptism is one which though it will not stand them in so much stead as to admit them to the Lords Supper for the seals ought not to be confounded yet it brings more with it than an empty title of visible Church-membership for its the dore and the only ordinary way we know God hath appointed us to enter into the invisible communion and fellowship with Christ and administers an entrance to that inestimable treasure of the glory of the Gospel now exhibited to spiritual persons in spiritual benefits by the spirit instead of Levitical rites and ceremonial Church estate wherein there were also spiritual blessings of the Jewes Mr. Tombes 22 Section THe second is answered already though Infants be not baptized grace is larger under the Gospel being extended to believers in all Nations than under the Law to the Israelites and some few Prosâ—lites The third is a speech that hath neither truth nor sobriety of expression nor proof it is but a bug-hear to affright the ignorant people to make use of such as he is and to make odious them that wil not baptize Infants as counting them as vile as the children of Turks Tartars or Cannibals even as they make them odious that will not bury their dead as not affording them Christian burial though they are buried as Christ was without â— Priest but burying as dogs But we know how to put a difference between Believers and Pagans children in regard of the love God bears to us some promises he hath made to us concerning them the hopefulness of them by reason of prayers education example society confirmed by many experiences that are comfortable all which things we should be contented with and not complain for want of an imaginary priviledge which is indeed no priviledge but a dammage to our children I for my part look upon the children of believers unsprinkled as pretious and rather more hopefull than those that are and I think Mr. C. as hard a conceipt as he hath of the Anabaptists and their children yet would be ashamed to say as he doth here of them That they are as vile as the children of Turks Tartars or Canniballs But that which he closeth with sheweth he was minded to affright the poor ignorant people as the popish Priests did of old Reply THe second absurdity was If Infants should be in covenant then and not now grace would be larger under the Law than under the Gospel which his Answer does not reach for the Question is not of extending means of salvation to Gentiles not proselired but independent of the Jewes which by degrees were multiplyed as was before from Abraham's sole family to a great nation surpassing in number the sands of the sea But whether all sexes ages degrees be in covenant which were before from which if Infants were excluded till actual professors the one half of Christendom would be excommunicated whereas Bucer saith on Mat. 19. that no age affordeth heaven so many Citizens as infancy The third for all his stormy blustering speaks with a great deal of evidence the words of sobriety and truth and is used as a motive to bring home the ignorant but well meaning people whom such as he hath seduced to make use of godly and Orthodox Ministers to baptize their Infants as they and all their progenitors were and to convince not to make odious those that will not whom we pitty for making their own children as much as in them lies as vile as the children of Turks Tartars and Canniballs yet hope God will not punish the innocent babâ—â— for their sins It is a malitious slander that we make them odious that will not bury that is officiate at the burial of the dead in which some of us may challenge precedency of Master Tombes who turned not with and it s to be feared for the times as he but prevented them yet we cannot be perswaded Christs burial ought to be a more necessary president than his death for ours till he can prove the Jewish burial rites and amongst them those that dyed as Malefactors to be our directory for then he must bury his friends out of Towns Churches or Church-yard in the fields in rocks or caves and not cover them with Earth we know not from Scripture to put any difference between believers and Pagans children unless the one be in visible covenant and may have the seal whereas the others are without them God hath made no promise to any that are out of
baptism as if such a benefit came by it All the benefit he talks of that comes to infants is either a meer empty title or else it comes to infants as well without baptism as with it The Devils dealing if it be as Mr. C. saith makes it appear the faith is good into which the pretended baptism is but not that the baptism is right Reply THe Signall judgments god expressed against them in Germany and the sad effects it hath wrought since these late wars with us may awake us to take heed of the sin lest we partake of the punishment Read Calvin Bullinger Sâ—elden Gastius Guy-debrees Mr. Cotton understood himself when he told one of his Apostated flock that had his house burned and his children in it no wonder that fire seized upon his house and God denyed water to quench it who denyed that water should be brought to baptize his Infants Eccles 9 1 2 one event falls out to the righteous and to the wicked and Luke 13 1 2 3 4 5 Those whose blood Pilat mingled with the sacrifice and they upon whom fell the Tower of Siloam were not greater sinners than others yet we may with sobriety pronounce of Gods judgements against the Sodomites Baalites Eâ—ymas the Sorcerer Symon Magus and such we judge not of men and Tenents by outward judgements but of outward judgements by men and their Tenents so Job was justifiable One may have his house burned that baptizes not his child perhaps another baptizes these abstractly concludes nothing But when Herod is smitten with an Angel while vaunting on his throne Ananias and Saphyra while lying Elymas the Sorcerer while seducing there is something remarkable in it especially if it fall out allwayes or often as it is observed disturbance of Peace and divine Vengance hath attended the Anabaptists in all Countries hitherto It may be some I doubt not thousands have prospered outwardly for a while after their refusing to baptize Infants Thousands it may be have fallen into calamities after they have baptized them yet neither of them for that cause and yet the one a virtuous action the other a sin deserving punishment which coming slowly will recompence the delay with a heavy stroke at last we judge of Gods dealing with persons by his word precepts prohibitions threats If God say the child that is not circumcised shall be cut off from his people for he hath broken my covenant we conceive it is just that God meets Moses and for neglect of circumcision threatens to slay him The rest of Mr T. his speech is invective As privatively the contempt of Infant-baptism is dangerous so positively it is beneficiall both to Parents and children first much comfort comes thereby to 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 Heb. 11. Genes 17 7 And this comfort springs from Gods promise founded in Christs merits conveyed by covenant-holiness or birth-priviledge sealed by baptism layd hold on by faith of Parents sometimes faith in the seed or secret act of Infants which to enjoy and be disobedient to the precept and practice of Infant-Baptism is a ridiculous conceit for Infant-Baptism brings not with it a meer empty title but obedience which is better than sacrifice and the benefit comes no more without Baptism than clensing of Naamans leprosie without washing in Jordan Secondly much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism which the Devil knows well when he causes Witches to renounce their Baptism when they enter into Covenant with him for they are thereby admitted into the bosome of the Church devoted consecrated unto God his name is put upon them they wear his royall badge and by it they are distinguished from Heathens and this so clearly from Scriptures truly and spiritually understood that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it This he passes by saving one gird at Witches saying the Devils dealing makes it appear the faith is good into which the pretended Baptism is but not that the Baptism is right Nay rather if Infant Baptism as he says be a nullity mockery will-worship They should stick to it for therein the Devill delights he might as well say The Devill causes Popish Conjurers when they enter into Covenant with him to renounce Baptizing of Bells worshipping of Images because driving away Devils the end of the one and adoring the prototype the design of the other is good Mr. Tombes 28. Section ENough of this frothy uncocted Sermon calculated for the ignorant and superstitious common people and the profane loose Gentry who mind not Godliness in earnest and for the blind Teachers of those parts who know not the Gospel but mind their own profits more than the understanding of the truth from whom the Lord deliver the dark parts of this land and provide Teachers for the people after his own heart that it be not as now it is in too many parts The blind lead the blind and both fall into the ditch Reply HIs Epilogue or Peroration is wholly invective and beyond the bounds of the most scurrilous Satyr Calumniatory Bespattering 1. The Sermon 2. The Commonalty 3. The Gentry 4. The Ministery of our parts concluding with John of Leydens Liturgie which he sung in procession upon his blind ass after his three nights dream from Luther Melancthon and the rest of the blind guides of the Gospel Good Lord deliver us 1. For the Sermon neither my Auditory re 〈…〉 red nor I affected curiosity nor could it be expected from 〈◊〉 exercising again that afternoon having preached a Funerall 〈…〉 mon that week and taught children every day yet I am con 〈…〉 ent it is truth in a homely drâ—ss and free from that censure a learned man passed on his at Rosse That he never heard a speech â—or truth more questionable for Method more disordered for language more discomposed than it 2. For our common people as he calls them defaming the Rock out of which he was â—hewed They are neither ignorant nor superstitious but well Catechized and grounded saving a few Anabaptists and some others whom they have scandalized by their opinions practice and divisions making Religion odious 3. For our Gentry whom this Lycophrons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls profane and loose Their judicious piety and discreet sobriety is so well known that neither Shimeis rayling nor Doegs defamation can impeach them and they mind godliness so far in earnest that he can not obtrude his errours upon them hence his gall overflows 4. For the Teachers of our parts whom he calls blind They have all eyes â—nough to see his palpable mistakes Some knows the Gospel as well as himself attending their flock with far more fidelity and constancy not deserting them upon every triviall occasion as he and contented with less than half his means with patience undergoes a double pains This in answer Now to gratify him To much of this Examination like raging waves of the Sea foming out his own shame Jude v. 13. Calculated exactly for the new Gospel Horizon discovered by Baltazzar Hubmir Nicholas Stock John of Leyden Barnard Rotman John Tuscoverer and the rest of the Garrison of Munster and may serve without any remarkable mistake for the Midnight Meridian of our English Anabaptists Ranters Quakers Levellers from whom the Lord deliver the enlightned parts of this Land and confirm Teachers for his people after his own heart that it be not as now it is in too many places the lowest of the rabble with Jeroboams Priests fill their hands and then advance their own Calves destroying souls like Pestilence in the darkness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉