And in this sense the Gospel-Covenant is made with the whole visible Church being taken without any Synecdoche for every Church-member Otherwise there could be no visible Gospell-Covenant Gospel-Ordinances Gospel-Ministery which must needs take the denomination from the visibilitie of the object and according to this new Tenet would be Utopian and no where Mr. Tombes 9. Section BUt I perceive by Mr. C. words page 30. If the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the Question were onely the elect c. That the terms Church and Covenant were so ambiguously used by him that I knew not how to conceive of his meaning and his fast speaking would not permit me deliberately to consider his words and therefore no marvell I desired liberty to explain my self and to enquire into Mr. C. meaning it being impossible for me otherwise to answer appositely and to make the disputation profitable for finding out truth As for that which Mr. C. saith That it was the Question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect it doth untruly suggest as if I so conceived who though I hold the Church invisible are the elect onely and that the Gospel Covenant of grace Heb. 8. 10 11 12. is made to them onely yet have still granted that the Church visible consists of others than elect persons and that outward Ordinances may lawfully be administred to them upon their profession of faith in Christ But Mr. C. by confounding those terms To be in Covenant to be subjects of Baptism c. misleads unwary hearers and readers Reply HEre Mr. Tombes like a bad division saltum facit skips over main passages in the dispute that it is needfull to find the end of the thâ—â—ad to guid us in the Meanders of this Labyrinth Then thâ— major proposition by him denyed was thus confiâ—med That which is made to the kâ—â—gdome of God upon earth is not onely made to the elect that which is made to the whole Church visible is made to the kingdome of God upon earth therefore it was not onely made to the elect Here he denyed the former proposition again which was proved thus In the Kingdome oâ— God that is in the Church Militant theâ—e are not onely elect but reprobates Saints but hypocrites for all that are outwardly called are of the kingdom of God in this sense and many are called and few chosen the Kingdome of God is compaâ—ed to a field where there are tares as well as wheat a fold where there are goats as well as sheep To a Noble mans house where there are vessels of dishonour as well as honâ—ur And if the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the Question were onely the Elect then it would follow that there were no visible Church upon earth the Jewes had no more visible Church than the Heathens the distinction of the Church visible and â—nvisible were frivolous for no mo man nor Angell knowâ— who are elect nor any but God All this he passes by and gives no answer to it as if it were a Gordian knot and insoluble onely like Aristotle's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ethic l. 4. c. 1. he catches at circumstances as men when almost drowned do at sticks or weeds for he sayes he perceives by my words pag. 30. If the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect c. that the teâ—ms Church and Covenant were so ambiguously used by me that he knew noâ— how to conceive of my meaning Thus this â—ugler casts a mist before the eyes of the Reader that by the virtue of Hocus Pocus he may seemingly swallow those daggers that he will never be able to dâ—gest But in good earnest were the terms Church and Covenant used ambiguously by me When by Church I expressed my self to mean the whole visible Church as in the major denyed pag. 29. â—nd by Covenant to mean an external covenant made with all vsible Professors in opposition to his Covenant made onely with the spiritual seed of Abraham pag. 14 Whosoever reads the Premises or the relation of the Dispute will find that I spake so clearly distinctly home in these terms that he conceiving my meaning did directly overthrow his gave no answer then nor does yet save this collaterall shift which like the black mud cast over the fish Sepia or Cuttle showes where he was taken But with Reignold he hath more evasions yet for my fast speaking he sayes would not permit him deliberately to consider my words what a sore is this that he layes his finger upon and complaines oâ— almost in every page The truth is I spake no faster than he repeated but faster than he answered That as the Cardinall of Lorrain said at Beza's dispute he wished the people had either been deaf or I dumb But this my fastness would not suffer him deliberately to consider my words If almost three hours time would not suffer him deliberately to consider of that which might have been delivered in one hour yet methinks six months since might But this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Epigram brings forth now as blind whelps as then So that it was a marvell that he desired liberty then to explain himself and to enquire into my meaning which was as transparent as if it had been writ with the Sun-beames but amounts to a prodigie that he should averr so now when he neither did so nor had the least occasion for it Onely when he perceived the people apprehended that he was brought to an apparent absurdity he waded into a large discourse to wind himself out it being impossible for him otherwise seemingly to answer or to make the disputation on his part but sophistically probable but by obscuring the truth But his assertion in the next section is more frontless for thus he charges me As for that which Mr. C. saith it was the Question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect It doth untruly suggest as if I so conceived whereas the truth is he untruly suggests that which I said not for my proposition was not Categorical as he mis-reports it that it was the Question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect but hypothetical if the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the Question were only the elect These were my words expresly neither can he drawout by any consequence that I implyed so much for if he rack them upon the Tenters he cannot stretch them to say that the question was whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances was onely the elect but the Question was about the administration of an outward Ordinance to wit Baptism And if I had said that had been the Question as he alledges it I had suggested nothing otherwise than he conceived if we may judge of his conceits by his
and not Baptizable All this makes nothing against my Thesis That those that are now visibly in covenant with God ought to have the seal of the covenant which is Baptism what wonders his Third part may do like a Tertius Cato is not yet discovered My arguing is good and proves Infants are wronged that have not Baptism the initiating seal but not so if they have not the Communion because they cannot examine themselves Neither can he from my Medium or any other prove it unless he contradict Scripture and himself who often sayes he would Baptize an Infant if he knew him to be regenerat yet I think he durst not give him the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper Mr. Tombes 9. Section THe Minor he takes on him to prove from Genesis 17. 7. But there is not a word of Infants of believing Parents But to prove it he cites Cornelius a Lapide a Jesuit for him and yet had he not falsely translated his words the words would have appeared to be against him for whereas he renders them in The Sprituall seed to the faithfull which mars his sense it is in the spirituall seed the faithfull So likewise Gal. 3. 8. Though there be not the teâ—m Abrahams seed yet it is directly against him for it asserts justification to the believing Gentiles onely from Abrahams promise not a promise to them and their seed I deny not but that Isack was in covenant with God that is a child of the promise not onely when he was but eight dayes old but also before the seventh yea afore he was borne but when he sayth he had the seal meaning circumcision by virtue of the lamb to be slain it is strange Divinity to me who never heard or read that any person was circumcised by virtue of Christs death but by reason of Gods command And that which he sayth much more the children of believing Parents by virtue of the lamb that is already slain which seems to intimate that circumcision is due to them much more and that by virtue of Christs death is a foppery like to the Authors ingeny He sayth Deut. 29. 11. when all the people stood in covenant before the Lord their litle ones are mentioned amongst the rest And are not their Wives and Servants Hewers of Wood an Drawers of Water Are all these in Covenant with God how doth he prove they were believers Infants The words v. 4. seem to make to the contrary It is no shift but a manifest truth that those Acts 2. 38 39 to whom Peter said The promise is to you and your children were not the believers in Christ when the words were spoken to them for first The Apostle exhorts to Repentance therefore they had not yet repented and so were not Believers Mr. C. himself pag. 78. in this Sermon saith Repentance is a fruit and effect of Faith therefore according to him not before it And in the dispute pag. 52 he made them Believers in fieri with aâ— incompleat repentance though perhaps not believers in facto 2. v. 40. He exhorted them with more words and then v. 41. some of them gladly recieved the word and were believors Yet Peter said to them before they were Believers the promise is to you and your Children nor is there a word in the Text that makes it clear that as soon as they were Believers their Children were in Covenant with them and to be baptized Reply THE Minor I prove from Genesis 17. 7. where the Infants of believing Parents are implyed it being a covenant not onely established with Abraham but with his seed after him in their generations for an everlasting covenant by virtue of which Isack and all succeeding Male-Infants were circumcised I cited Cornelius a Lapide which he does often though a Jesuit not to prove the point but the harmony of learned men against the new fangle Anabaptist the translation of whose words though mistaken in a sillable by the Relator or Printer makes for me for both the words and Context proves prerogative of birth to believers Infants to the end of the World In Gal. 3. 8. There is implyed Abrahams seed in that it was a Gospell-covenant and that in him all Nations shall be blessed and is directly for me for it asserts the covenant and in that justification to the believing Gentiles not onely from Abrahams promise but also a promise to them and their seed I confess Isaak was in covenant with God internally that is as he interprets a child of promise not onely when he was but eight dayes old but before the seventh but we speak of a visible covenant which he at least compleatly entered not till by circumcision the eight day which outward seal I say meaning circumcision as well as the inward circumcision of the heart he had by the virtue or in the virtue of the lamb to be slain And is no strange Divinity to them who acknowledge Christ the Angel and Mediator of the covenant both to hear and read that every person was circumcised by virtue of Christs death as the Meritorius as well as by reason of Gods command the efficient cause To looke at any circumstance of the covenant of grace out of Christ or not receiving virtue from Christ is too looke in a glasse wherein we may see our own damnation I rightly inferred if Isack had the sâ—al circumcision by virtue of the lamb to be slain much more the children of believing Parents now may have the seal baptism by virtue of the lamb already slain But too intimate from thence that the old seal of circumcision is much more due now to Infants of believing Christians is a note beyond Ela and a misshapen crotchet like the Composers Phantasie I said Deut. 29. 11. when all the people stood in covenant before the Lord their little ones are mentioned amongst the rest as are indeed their wives and servants hewers of wood and drawers of water who were either Jewes or circumcised Proselytes which all were in covenant with God had the seal therefore their Infants were believers that is Professors Infants as the words in the first verse and consequently in the 4. verse prove For God expostulates there not with Aliens out of covenant but with his own who had been careless many of them of the conditions of the covenant It is a shift and a maniâ—est untruth that those Acts 2. 38 39 To whom Peter said the promise is to you and your children were not accepters or entertainers of Christ when the words were spoken to them for 1. The Apostle exhorts them to compleat repentance which was initiated or begun in them they were pricked in heart therefore also faith that is profession of faith Men and Bretheren what shall we do I said in the sermon compleat repentance is an effect and fruit of saving faith as in order of nature after it Yet there is an incompleat repentance and profession of faith antecedent to both In the dispute accordingly I
most humble and devoted Servant in the Lord Jesus John Cragge To the Reader Courteous Reader TO please my self and perhaps thee I shall displease many First my Friend for making his private token a publick frolick Secondly Mr. Tombs for bringing him in this last Catastrophe wounded in the heel by Troilus and Paris who vaunts that in former Scenes like Achilles so far as he was dipped in the River by his Mother Thetis he hath been unpierced by the Weapons of the stoutest Hectors Thirdly Mr. Cragge and Mr. Vaughan for exposing their Disputes conceived in an hour and an half and the Sermon contrived in a day and a half to long censure Fourthly the Anabaptists as they will deem for too uncourteously galling their soars Fiftly their Adversaries the Paedobaptists for too courteously or as they will fancy partially concealing Mr. Tombs harsh language and his Favourites Incivilities Sixtly the Learned in general for bringing these Nilus-like hatched Births in a moment into the open Amphitheater with those Elephants that have been ten years in conception My Apologie for the whole is as followeth The bulk of this Manual is small some may reach to the price of it that cannot of those larger Volumes may have time to read it that cannot them The method of this is facile the language plain some will understand this that cannot them Besides wee naturally love the transactions of those whose persons we know Some heard them transiently as they were delivered and would be glad deliberately to read them Some heard them not but at the second hand as they were variously reported according to the Judgement and affection of the Relator who would be willing to know the business truly stated If any of the Parties concerned find themselves aggrieved and intend to bend their stile against me I 'le answer them at the Day of Judgement when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed In the mean time if Truth may be advanced Errour discouraged Godliness countenanced Hypocrisie unmasked thou edified God glorified I have mine ends Farewell Yours in the Lord I. T. P. A relation of a Conference had between Mr. John Tombs B. D. and Henry Vaughan M. A. in St. Maries Church in Abergavenny Sept. 5. 1653 touching Infant-Baptism briefly and punctually set down to the sense of both V INfants may lawfully be Baptized for they be admitted into the covenant of grace now by Baptism as they were before and under the Law admitted into the same covenant by Circumcision T. I deny your consequence V. You must deny it either because the covenant of grace made with Abraham and his seed is not the same in substance with that which is now actually in force with beleevers and their Children or Secondly because Baptism succeedeth not in the room of Circumcision T. I could deny your division yet I say to gratifie you for both those reasons V. For the former That the covenant made with Abraham and his seed is the same which is now actually in force with beleevers appears by comparing Genes 17. 2. with Galat. 3. 14. where it is clearly set forth that the promise made to Abraham came unto the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. T. Here he distinguisheth of a towfold seed of Abraham the naturall and spirituall and saith that the covenant was made with Abrahams spirituall seed and not the naturall V. Even all the children of Abraham were Circumcised and consequently admitted into the covenant not one excepted for every Man-child was to be Circumcised Gen 17. 10. It appears by what hapned to Moses for not Circumcising his Child Exod. 4 24. Even Ishmael was circumcised Genes 17. 23. who belonged not to the promise but was of the naturall seed T. Ishmael and the naturall Children of Abraham were admitted to the externall part namely outward priviledges and temporall blessings and not to the internall or spirituall part thereof By the Internall part he must needs mean that part of it expressed Gen. 17. 7. in these words To be a God unto thee and unto thy seed after thee and in the end of v. 8. I will be their God To justifie this his destinction he referred us to Rom. 9. and I think v. 8. where the Children of the promise are contradistinguished from the Children of the flesh or the naturall Children of Abraham So that the covenant was made not to the naturall Children of Abraham but to such of them as were elect and faithfull V. This covenant was made alike in the same extent and latitude promiscuously with all the seed of Abraham and those that lost the promise and the benefit of this covenant which men you call the naturall seed lost it not because they were not at first comprehended in the covenant but because of their own unbeleef Rom. 11. 20. I confesse that the children of Isaac are Rom. 9. called the Children of the promise not in regard of any peremptory election or designation to Faith and Salvation or on the contrary of any absolute reprobation of the seed of Ishmael For if it had been Pauls designe to declare the Children of Ishmael yea the greatest part of the Jewes to have been rejected by a certain absolute decree why should he v. 1. 2. so much lament their incredulitie wish himself accursed for their sakes v. 3. and Rom. 10. v. 1. desire and pray for their conversion since upon such an absolute decree of reprobating them all that happened to them was inevitable But the Children of Isaac are called the Children of promise First because they onely were to inherite the land of Canaan and Secondly because Christ according to the flesh was to descend from the progenie of Isaac not of Ishmael I might have added that if none but the elect and faithfull can be admitted into the covenant there is no subject left for the ordinance of Baptism it being impossible for man to know who are elect spirituall and true believers Neither can you Baptize with right or safety all such grown persons as you Baptize since you cannot be assured that they are elect Spirituall or true believers Revel 2. 17. nor have any light to guide you save that of charitable opinion and conjecture Again it being admitted that none but the Spirituall elect and believing can be Baptized the same charitie that swayes your judgment for grown persons must much rather move you to hope the best of innocent infants guiltie of no actuall sin since it hopes all things and thinks no evill 1. Cor. 13. 2. They may have faith in semine habitu in the seed as they have the habit of principles and reason though they cannot exercise it till ripe years 3. Though they have not actuall faith yet the faith of their parents may and doth put them into a capacitie of being admitted into the covenant nor is it news that the parents faith advantageth the Children Joh. 4. 50. T. I could wish you could prove that Infants of believers might be admitted to
found a flaw in his title for the term Antipaedobaptist is a new name a new thing and upon farther enquiry will be found a new nothing But before he make so great an attempt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Giants to contest with Heaven he might do well Polyphemus like to grapple with Ulisses and Traverse the Inditement preferred by Mr. Halls Font-garded page 74 in these words Hold up thy hand Anabaptist or Alias Anti-Paedobaptist Thou art here indited by the name of Anabaptist of the City of Munster in the County of Babel for that thou contrary to the peace of our Soveraign Lord and Saviour his Crown and Dignity hast brought forth disorder and confusion into the Church of God together with a bastard brood of Muntzerians Augustinians Hofniannians Georgians Servetians Silentiarians Eucheldians Swenkfeldians Hamanarians or Dungwagons Euchites Huttites Adamites Gabrielites Mennonites Melchiorites Apostolists Adiaphorists Spiritualists Enthysiasts Catharists Separatists Hemerobaptists Sebaptists Libertines c. Together with a Squadran of Arrians Arminians Socinians Anti-Trinitarians Anti-Sabbatarians Anti-Scripturists Mortalists Familists Perfectists Origenists Atheists Millenaries c. And that this might be the better effected let him except against the Jury which is first the Antient Fathers 2. The Reformed Churches 3. Calvin 4. Ursin 5. Apollonius 6. Mr. Perkins 7. Mr. Heron 8. Mr. Pemble 9. Dr. Usher 10. Mr. Baxter 11. Mr. Ward 12. Mr. Brinsley 13. Dr. Tho. Goodwin with many others And having made good his exceptions let him reverse the sentence which is as followeth Anabaptist thou hast been indited by the name of Anabaptist for cruelty and injury to the Lambs of Christ Thou hast been found guilty and art condemned both by God and man by all reformed Churches by Scriptures Fathers Councels by learned and pious Divines both sorraigne and domestick both old and new by friends and foes And therefore I adjudge thee to a Recantation and Abrenunciation of all thy loose licentious tenets that thou no more disturb this Church and State least Justice do Arrest thee But he unmindfull of this as if the Anabaptist were the Plantiff and not the Reus or party at the Barr in question inveighs against the vanity and falshood of scribled papers Tria Cerberus extulit ora tres latratus simul edidit Ovid Metamor 5. Three terms of diminution with three breaths It was Libanius Porphyrie and Julians project to throw dung in the face of Orthodox Writers So does Mr. Tombes calling Mr. Baxters learned piece Plain Scripture-proof for Infant Baptism A cheat and Mock-titled book Mr. Marshalls impregnable Defence Ink and paper and the relation of the dispute had with him at Abergaveny vanity and falshood of scribled papers Vanity perhaps because he thinks it is in vain to attempt the steely resolutions of the fautors and fomenters of Anabaptism yet we have found the contrary in some Falshood not in respect of the fidelity of relating the Dispute and Sermon nor of the Opponents Arguments which are true in both But of the position maintained by the Respondent which is a falshood and such an one as may leaven the whole lump But why of scribled papers It may be Mr. Tombes met with it before printed and not unlikely because his Answer came out within three weeks after it which could not be unlesse it had been mounted upon Bellerophons horse and Pegasus his wings especially seeing he is known Elephant-like to be long in conception and ursino lambere more partum deliberately to lick into shape that which he hath conceived But he goes on saying they were entituled The Anabaptists Anatomized and silenced By whom Not by the Relator nor Mr. Vaughan nor me I will not say by Mr. Tombes and his party but I am confident they knew of it long before any of us But where Anatomized and silenced He says in a publick Dispute at Abergaveny in Monmothshire he sayes But neither the scribled papers to use his Tapinosis nor printed papers mentions any such thing Indeed the engraven paper speakes of Anabaptists Anatomized and silenc'd but not at Abergaveny Sept. 5. 1653 The place for any thing I see may be Munster the time when when John of Leiden was confuted by the Lantgraves preachers so that the last words are his own pure pute addition wherein we have found out the vanity and falshood before mentioned And further to bespatter his Antagonists he closes his frontispiece page with a text out of the book of Job but very ominously for they are the words of one unjustly charging Job as he does us his name is Zophar which in the Syriak signifies A Goat by country a Naamathite which signifies Set on the left hand joyn them together and you know the sentence And this book thus frontispieced and imbellished is to be sold at the sign of Sir John Old-Castle a Traitor who was hanged on a gibbet and burned in St. Gyles fields Stow Chr. pag. 599. vâ—no vendibili digna est hedera like sign like wine By the tree we may know the ensuing fruits Mr. Tombes 2. Section There came newly to my hands a pamphlet wherein the Intitler speaks like a vain Braggadochio as if the book had ript up the Anabaptists as he terms them and like a Prelate had silenced them though there was but one whom with any face it could be pretended that he was Anatomized or silenced who yet speaks and writes for the truth which these opponents do endevour to disgrace and rejoycâ—th that he lives to find that these men have no other thing to charge him with than his contending for a reformation of that prophane abuse of Infant-sprinkling and that they have no other encouragement from him to persist in their Paedobaptism but a fond hope of his returning to that sinfull practise Reply He sayes There came newly to his hands a Pamphlet And why a Pamphlet and yet scribled papers Unlesse a Manuscript with a womans â—oot and all contradictions ex adjecto may be reconciled The Intitler of it he sayâ—s speaks like a vaâ—n Braggadochio as if the book had ript up the Anabaptists The Intitler he means of the Anabaptists Anatomized and Silenced at Abergaveny What Intitler the Man in the moon or Oberam King of the Fairies We see none visible but himself and then judge who is the vain Bragadochio Besides he alters the state of the question In the Title page he sayes the Anabaptist anatomized and silenced in a dispute at Abergaveny and here he speaks of the book Anatomizing and silencing the Anabaptists how do these things suit with the truth or câ—here one with another There is not such a word in the book as that the Anabaptists were anatomized and silenced at Abergaveny or if anatomized and silenced in the dispute at Abergaveny does it follow that the book did rip and silence them which was then and some months after not in being The Dispute is one thing the book another which when Mr. T. writ this had not so
much as seen Abergaveny He addes to render it more odious like a Prelate had silenced them Truly as there is no such thing as a Prelate extant to silence in the Church so no such thing as this forementioned Silencing in the book I wish I could truly say so much of the third No such thing as an Anabaptist to be silenced I mean the opinion their persons I love their piety and learning where it is found I reverence But Mr. T. might have found nearer home some more resembling the most Prelatical of Prelates not excluding the Pope and that 's they that Magisterially prefers their own private opinions before the judgments of learned and godly Assemblies of Divines Harmonies of Confessions Determinations of Councells Oecomenial censuring all their brethren that dissents of prophane abuse and sinfull practise as he does in the words following In the interim he sayes there was but one whom with any face it could be pretended he was Anatomized or silenced Perhaps he means because he was the only Disputant yet there were two in the Pulpit that interposed with him some fâ—w that spake in the crowd many that ostentatiously vaunted before the Dispute that were more modest or silent afterwards But yet he speaks and writes for the Truth So said Copp and Collier I wish he did so we would be so far from opposing or disgracing his tenet that we would endeavour to maintain it with him and advance it Truth commonly goes attended with humility and self-denial which I fear the words following little relish of for he rejoyceth that those that dâ—ssent from him have no other thing to charge him with than his contending for a reformation of that prophane abuse of Infant-sprinkling Well be it so or the contrary we had rather with Sem and Japhet cover the nakednesse of Fathers in Israel than with Cam to expose it to open shame yet we think that the poor Publican that abaseth himself will rather go away justified than the proud Pharisie that rejoyces or thanks God that he is not as other men nor as those that are for the prophane abuse of Infant-sprinkling A high charge and dangerous if he make it not good which he will never do by his pretended reformation otherwise than to use the homely comparison of a godly man the devill did when going to streighten his dammes legge he broak it In the mean time the lesse hope we have of his return the more is his losse yet who knowes but he that like Saul reviles this way which he calls of sinfull practise may with the stray sheep be brought home at length to see his errour to the joy of men and Angels Mr. Tombes 3 Section The Libel hath a frontispice which pretends to shew the manner of the Anabaptists dipping but most falsly sith it represents it to the eyâ— of the beholders as if they held persons by the heels when they baptize them which is otherwise than their practise The pretended manner of laying on of hands and washing of feet is unknown to me if they do use it yet they have such likely proofes from Heb. 6. 2. and our Saviours practise and command John 13. as might have deterred the Author of this frontispiece from exposing the Ordinance of Baptism and those other Rites to contempt had he any reverence to holy things and regard to Christs appointment But the frontispiece of Dr. Featlies book and this with the Epistles and other passages do give occasion to intelligent persons to conceive that this sort of men do make but a sport of Christs Ordinance and that they have little mind to search for or receive truth but to expose them that are for believers Baptism and against Infant-sprinkling to the contempt of light and prophane wits and to the hatred of the ignorant and supersticious common people And I conceive that this book is published by men of that spirit who seeke to make odious the endeavoured reformation of ignorance superstition prophaneness and ungodlinesse which abounds in those parts and to uphold those either loose or formal pretended Ministers who take upon them to teach but indeed as Elymas the Sorcerer Acts 13. pervert the right way of the Lord. Reply Still more venome he calls it a Libell why because unlicensed So is his Plea and the most of his works except his Exercitation and Examen and they but conditionally which being violated renders them more obnoxious Or because dissonant from the doctrine of the reformed Churches So this falls under that guilt and it is cleared A Libell as my Lord of St. Albans Etimologized it hath its name from a Ly and a Bell A Ly hatched at home a Bell to ring it abroad So Mr. Tombes his Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists was hatched in private in his study rung abroad through the Country A Lye nay like the man possessed with devils amongst the Tombes its name is Legion because they are many This he saith hath a Frontispiece he should have said an Anti-frontispiece which pretends to shew the manner of Anabaptists dipping but most falsly sith it represents to the eyes of the beholders as if they held persons by the heels when they baptize them which is otherwise then their practise To which I return in his own language he relates it most falsly seing the representation is otherwise than he says for if he had not been I will not say like to Elymas the Sorcerer to whom he compares us smit with blindnesse he might have seen they hold them by the hands and not by the heels unlesse their heels be-continued and immediately joyned to their neck and shoulders which cannot be imagined unlesse like Ulisses companions when thrown into the water they are Metamorphized into swine their armes turned into leggs their hands into heeles And what strange Prodigie if they had been represented as held by the heels It s a known thing that some have been thrown in by the hands but have been pulled out dead by the heels with this funeral sermon preached over them I tremble to utter it You see that no sooner are they new-born but God takes them to himself But this Anti-Paedobaptist hath another quarrel at the Anti-frontispiece page which he fastens upon the Paedobaptists and the frontispiece page which is that the pretended manner of laying on of hands and washing of feet is unknown to him and yet he seems to call it Christs appointment and says that they have likely proofs from Heb. 6. 2. and our Saviours practise and command John 13. whence we may gather that there are some things of Christs appointment and have proof from Scripture and our Saviours practise and command which are unknown to him It seems he is but yet a Seeker and though it were true he dissented in nothing from the Church of England save in the Question of Infant-Baptism By this principle he is lyable to stray as far as the German Anabaptists I will not impeach him with Judaism for making
be found it cannot be justified without sacriledge His third allegation that the true cause of Anabaptism is shining forth of lâ—ght from the Scriptures and other Authors what other Authors Is not Scripture by Bellarmine's own confession certissima omnium perfectissima regula the most certain and perfectest rule of all Yea the sole and adequate rule of our faith Scripture its true may impart its light to other Authors as the Sun empties his rayes as the Astronomers speak in inferiores crateras into inferiour sublunary vessels If the Scripture have thus emptied it self for the advantage of Anabaptism they might do well to let it appear produce one solâ—d Argument out of Scripture against Infant-Baptism name one Authentick and impartial Author that demonstrates out of one Text of Scripture that Infants ought not de jure to be baptized out of the undoubted Records of one Century that de facto they were not baptized but this they never could do yet never will do Indeed they may fancy to themselves abundance of light out of Scripture like sick persons in some disease when death approaches thinks that store of tapers and torches are lighted about the bed when the candle is out the cause is in the distemper of the brain and eye and if the spiritual eye of the soul be darkened 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how great is the darkness The fourth Allegation is That this light out of Scripture and other Authors was not discerned formerly as now Some of our Anabaptists are of opinion that Christ never locally ascended into heaven but onely vanished out of sight and is yet bodily upon the earth vouchsafing his apparition to the Saints now which he did not in former ages This is either a diabolical fiction or a deluding Phantasm like to this is the pretended light out of Scripture and other Authors for Anabaptism not discerned formerly as now Did Berengarius see more than the primative Fathers and Martyrs The Albigenses of France and the Anonymi more then Berengarius Peter de Bruis more than the Albigenses Baltazzar Hubmir Pacimontanus Muncer and John of Leyden more than Peter de Bruis And Mr. Tombes as a child upon these Giants shoulders sees further into childrens baptism than they all Ring the bells backward and make Horace recant his parentum pejor avis lib. 3. ode 6. That every thing degenerates Ovid and Hesiod were mistaken now is the golden age and not before It seems the promise that Christ made to the never dying corporation of his Apostles and their successors that he was with them alway even to the end of the world was not performed before That the Holy Ghost that was to lead into all truth was not sent till now We have special predictions of these latter dayes but it s such as these 2 Tim. 3. 1 2 6 7. In the last dayes perillous times shall come for men shall be lovers of their own selves covetous boasters proud blasphemers disobedient to parents unthankfull unholy c. Of this sort are they that creep into houses and lead captive silly womâ—n laden with sins led away with divers lusts ever hearing and never able to come to the knowledg of the truth Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses so do these also the truth Jude 18. 19. There should be mockers in the last time who should walk after their own ungodly lusts These be they who separate themselves sensual having not the Spirit And our Saviour himself tells us when he shall come he shall scarce find faith upon earth But that there is shining light out of Scripture and other Authors not formerly discerned about Infant-Baptism otherwise than that by opposition the truth is more cleared I fear is but a bragg like Oromazes in Plutarch who boasted he had an Egge that had included in it the happiness of the world which being broken proved a wind-egg and nothing came forth but corrupted aire I have read of a Mountebanke that bragged of a new receipt that would make dimme eyes see as perfectly as those of Lynceus who could discover the flaggs of ships from the Carthaginian to the Lilibaean shore but being applyed put them out Satan promised Eve that her eyes should be opened and that they should be as Gods knowing good and evill but it was to see their misery as the event declares John of Leyden when he awaked out of his deep sleep pretended strange revelations and new lights which ended in riding upon a blind Asse in the market place where he afterwards for his impostures suffered Male ominatis parcite verbis God grant that the end of our Anabaptists may be to their own comfort and the peace of the Church and that is the worst I wish them In answer to the fourth head of the Epistle why the Anabaptists were permitted and their books printed seing those of Arrius Dr. Pocklingtons Mr. Archers were burned he passes by the reasons there assigned which are these 1. The providence of God 2. The wisdome of the state The providence of God who suffers errours 1. That truth by opposition may more diligently be searched out 2. That the sincerity and constancy of the faithfull may be tryed 3. That impenitent and proud in spirit may be blinded and hardned The wisdome of the State that like wise Chirurgians will not launce a turgid ulcer till it be ripe A skilfull Phisitian that will not purge some floating humors till they be settled These he calls the Epistlers own ignorant surmises when they are not his own but in effect of the whole Church not ignorant surmises but the judgment of most learned men wherein consequently he accuses many former Councells Synods Harmonies of confessions Parliaments Canon Civill Statute laws many former Treatises of learned Divines and the late Assembly of ignorant surmises The true reason sayes he why their books and practise is permitted is because they have at least so much appearance of truth as is sufficient to make wise men to let them alone least they haply should fight against God This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or common allegation that the Quakers Shakers Ranters and all dissenters plead for liberty of conscience wherein are couched two words that discovers an Asses ears under a Lions skin and a poult-foot under a long mantle for he speaks not out and sayes absolutely that there is truth in their books but that there is at least so much appearance of truth not that those that oppose them fight against God but that haply that is casually they may fight against God True it is which the Philosopher saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many things appears and makes fair semblance which are but shadowes and kickshowes Copp put such a gloss and varnish upon upon his blasphemies that a Matron that cryed shame upon him before when she heard his Sophisticated reasons was convinced to be of his judgment Anabaptism is a Magazine of all subtiltie fortified and ammunitioned with all sorts of
Paralogismes and Elenches of Sophistrie In which Etnean forge Mr. T. is the chief Briarius or Gias who operates with more than an hundred hands yet wise learned men easily discovers a vein of fallacies running through the whole mine and by the cynosure or pole-star of the Gospel escapes themselves and directs others to avoid the Rhegium or breach they make in the Church and cuts the channel even betwixt the Scylla or gulf of errours on the one hand and the Charybdis or rock of absurdities on the other Now if any well meaning though weak Christian be inveigled with this errour we would not have them fight against God that is their own conscience which haply by accident may be when they oppose an untruth but we would have them by sweet insinuations and Arguments to be won unto the truth Yet this is no Plea for Bigots of the faction like fire to turn all things into their own nature and with the Pharisees to compass Sea and Land to make Proselytes of their own opinion Therefore Edward the sixt when Cranmer Arch-bishop of Canterbury and Ridley Bishop of London were sent from the Councell to entreat him for toleration but in one family of a Religion that was against his conscience he first opposed it out of Scripture-grounds secondly backed it with a resolution that he would spend his life and all that he had rather than to agree and grant to that he knew certainly to be against the truth And lastly when they continued their importunity his tender heart bursting out in bitter weeping and sobbing desired them to be content whereat the Bishops themselves seeing his zeale and constancie wept as fast as he as convinced with his tears which like Mary Magdalens tears may well be proclaymed for a memorial and Monument of him and is well worth our imitation Acts and Monuments Tom. 2. p. 1295. col 2. Edit Anni 1583. Master Tombes 8. Section THough Disputes are usefull yet such unworthy artifices as I find in and after them are a just reason for me to waâ—e them especially with such men as I have met with What the success hath been of the disputes mentioned is not so proper for me to enquire The publishing of that at Bewdley in so unbrotherly manner hath I imagin diverted many from the truth who if they had not been willing to be deluded had never been caught with such a cheat as is the mock-titled book Plain Scripture-proof for Infant Baptism The rest of the Disputes have not gained that I hear any credit to â—adobaptism but on the contrary among the intelligent It is true I was importuned to visit some friends at Abergaveny and did preach there and some of the things the letter mentions I spake and do still avouch The two mentioned were unknown to me I slighted neither though being wearied with preaching I did forbear to speak much and was willing to get into a dry house from the rain I was willing tâ— havâ— confeâ—ence with Mr. V. who seemed modest and intelligent The other Opponent I found before to be a man of talk who could not blush That which the second Epistle writes of my being wounded and vaunting is meerly fabulous and I think the like of the short time of conceâ—ving the Dispute and Sermon It displeaseth me not that the businessâ— should be truly stated which is the end of this writing though it displease me that such unworthy tricks are used to deceive people as those which appear in the publishing this Disputation and Sermon I intend not to lengthen the business by insisting on the falsity of the reports of my Answer It is not improbable I might in five hours Dispute with one who talked so fast as to give no time to consider of what he said answer nâ—t so clearly as I would had I had the Arguments to view and examine deliberately I presume it will be sufficient for clearing Truth if either I shew how my Answers are misreported or â—ow they are to bâ— amended Reply TO the fifth head of the Epistle wherein it is enquired whether it be fit to Dispute and confer wiâ—h Anabaptists seeing their Doctrine eats â—s a Cankâ—r for which cause the Empress Placilla would not suffer her husband Theodosius to discourse with the Heretick Eunomius He answers by concurring in judgment with the resolution there given granâ—ing by an hypothesis that Disputes are usâ—fuâ— but like Margery-good-cow â—veâ—th owes it presâ—ntly again with thâ—s Thesis that such unworthy artifiâ—es as he fiâ—ds in and after them are a just reason for him to wave them especially with such men as he hath met with What unworth artifices hath Mr. Tombes found iâ— Disputes Lâ—gâ—ck and Divine Truth Logick or refined reason whereby â—is â—alacies Divine Truth whereby hâ—s errours are discovered Hâ—w much are they to blame that set up true Lights to descry false Warâ—s What Artifices hath he found after Disputes A publication of them that what was transacted in private is transmitted to the publick view O unworthy project Cannot Bajaset bâ— taken but he must be carrâ—ed abâ—ut in a Cage to be sâ—en Nothing grieved the Monks and Friers so much as when the Images of Daâ—nâ—l Gathern the rood of Grace and Wilfrids nedâ—e were pulled dâ—wn that they were showne at Pauls-Crosse and elsâ—where that all mâ—gâ—t sâ—e the secret gimmers by which a Priâ—st invisible dâ—d act the pretendâ—d Miracâ—es And he further aggravates these unworthy Artifices with an Emphasis put upon them especially with such men as he hath met with What men hath he met with Such whose neither Person nor Arguments he can reconcile to his party Caligula loves to grapple with the shells of the shore whence Trophies of victory may be carried away without sweat or blood so does the Anabaptists like Salmacida spolia sine sanguine sudore And therefore because he cannot carry away a dry conquest he resolves to wave Disputes hereafter I wish hâ— had done so hitherto both by pen and otherwise his conscience one day would have found more peace and the Church more quiet O that he would imitate Austin hereafâ—er who nevâ—r writ so fair a hand as when he writ backward his â—erractations What successe the Disputes at Bewdley Hereford Ross and Abergaveny had he sayes is not so proper for him to enquire whether proper or no we cannot believe but that he is so carefull a husbandman when he hath planted and watered he will look after the increase or if he enquire not others will be apt to tel him which he confesseth afterward for Fame hath an hundred feet an hundred wings an hundred mouthes That at Bewdley he implyedly confesses hath had success for Infant-Baptism but presently he sends up a swarm of Locusts to dimm this light 1. Affirming that it was published in an unbrotherly manner 2. That it diverted many from truth 3. That they were willing to be deluded 4. That they were caught with a cheat 5. That the
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
which was done v. 41. to be consequent on that which was done before v. 40. Reply HE denying that these Jewes Acts 2. 38. were sufficiently qualified for Baptism by outward profession or a willingness to receive the ordinance was assaulted with this Argument They whom the Apostle commanded to be baptizâ—d were sufficiently qualified but the Apostle commanded them to be baptized Therfore they were sufficiently qualified He denyed that the Apostle commanded them to be baptized which was proved verse 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imperatively be baptized every one of you his answer was upon condition of repentance repent and be baptized That I told him was a condition of his own making and an adding to the Word of God for the Scripture no where expresly or implyedly sayes that repentance is a condition of baptism if it be meant of compleat repentance for though it was their duty both to repent and to be baptized to repent in relation to crucifying of Christ to be Baptized in relation to Judaism which they were to put off and Christianity which they were to put on but that they must have compleat repentance before baptism is not so much as hinted at all this he passes by which might have given light to that which followes onely â—atches at this what I say that Acts 2. 38. repentance is not maâ—e a condition of being baptized is in his apprehension manifestly false where he unfaithfully reciâ—es my words leaving out that whith is the hinge of the controversie for I said not but granted that repentance was a condition in adultis of being baptized but denyed that compleat repentance was for then none were to be baptized till they were compleat Christians then the Pharisees and others John Baptized were such Then the Apostle preached to baptâ—zed and brought to that perfection three thousand Jewes in one day then the Goaler and his family were perfected in a part of a night Lydia and her houshold with one sermon whereas Mr. T. hath been preaching writing disputing these twelve years for Antipaedobaptism and yet by report hath scarce dipped a hundred and how many of these had compleat repentance I leave it to him that searches the heart it being pretended that the spirit is poured â—ut more abundantly now than it was in former times and his reason is as feeble as the quotation false for the requiring sayes he repentance as first to be done and then Baptism to be annexed doth make it a condition of Baptism To which I answer first incompleat repentance which consists in acknowledging ones former errour and inclining to accept of Christ is a condition requisite and therefore he idly beats the aire Secondly I deny that he requires compleat repentance first to be done Thirdly that he requires Baptism to be annexed to compleat a repentance 1. He requires not compleat repentance first to be done for first repentance is pressed there as the end Baptism as the means repentance is a continued act all our life long Baptism like regeneration but once repentance is the first in intention and therefore oftentimes first expressed as analytically in all practical methods according to Arist 2. Phys cap. 9 t. 69 Finis est unde principium ducitur non agendi sed cogitandi Finis est principium actionum 1. Metaph. 2. Hence arises this philosophical Canon omnis Intellectus operativus incipit a fine every practical act of the understanding begins at the end Therefore 2 he requires not Baptism to be annexed to compleat repentance but presupposes it before it therefore the Catechumeni or converted Pagans in the infancie of the Church and the baptized in latter times in full constituted Churches did promise by themselves or sureties to forsake the Devil the World and the Flesh and to keep all the Commandements So that Baptism does not necessarily pâ—esuppose but is a tye for the future obliging to complete repentance therefore John Baptist sayes Matth. 3. 11. 1 Baptize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to repentance and they were baptized v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confessing their sins first baptising is expressed then repentance and confessing of sins So that from the order of the words if there be any force in such an Argument we might as well conclude requiring baptism first to be done and then repentance and confession of sins to be annexed doth make baptism a condition of repentance And his Instance is as weak and impertinent believe and thou shalt be saved believe is made a condition of salvation what then Repent and be baptized for it is not repent and thou shalt be baptized therefore complete repentance is made a condition of Baptism a strange consequence and hath couchant two fallacies in it first a secundum quid ad simpliciter for if some thing that is first placed in order be a condition of another as faith of salvation it doth not follow from a particular to an universal that alwayes that which is placed first is made a condition of the latter 2. It is fallacia accidentis but a contingent thing that the former in order is a condition of the latter Me thinks Mr. T. that will allow no Argument from Analogies in positives without a precept should not enforce an Argument from placing oâ— words without a precept But to his Instance believe and thou shalt be saved believe is made a condition of salvation what belief actual For so it s meant Mark 16. 16. What then will become of all Infants unless God work a miracle upon them to use his own parallel as he did upon Baalam's Asse Exam. pag. 134 But as actual belief is pâ—t before salvation so before Baptism that from his ground it will follow none but actual believers are to be baptized which without extraordinary revelation is impossible for the Baptist to know and would be an unanswerable Argument for the Socinians But as believing is placed before Baptism is not Baptism placed before Salvation He that is baptized shall be saved by his Logick it will follow that Baptism is a necessary condition of Salvation why does he then insult so much upon Austin and some of the ancients for holding the necessity of baptism to salvation and against the Doctors of the Church of Rome for maintaining a Limbum Infantum when he furnishes them with a medium to inforce their conclusions If this his assertion hath any truth iâ— it as indeed it hath none Having unfaithfully as you see recited my proposition by concealing the word compleat after it had wrought a while upon his stomack he was forced to vomit it up and with it some gall faying my talk about incompleat repentance because they were pricked in their hearts as a sufficient qualification for baptism doth make the Apostles speech idle which requires that which they had already if I say true Soft and faire let him take patience along with him and look before he leape I say again incompleat repentance not onely because they were pricked
children but of holiness adhering to them outwardly that is of the holiness of the Covenant for the children of believers are comprehended in the Covenant of grace and so far forth are judged holy of God Well said Hugo What now says Master T. to his beloved Pamphilus being defeated of his Philomena but in the language of Charinus nullane in re cuiquam hominum esse fidem Terent. Andr. The Assemby of Divines consisting of a hundred and fiftie Reverend and learned Ministers indeed the Representative of the Church of England crosses him in this First in the Directory pag. 21. Infants are Christians and federally holy before Baptism and therefore are they Baptized and this confirmed by Ordinance of Parliament Larger Catechism pag. 138 Infants descending from Parents either both or but one of them professing Faith in Christ and obedience to him are in that respect within the Covenant and to be baptized Lesser Catechism pag. 176. Infants of such as are Members of the visible Church are to be baptized in both places quoting 1 Cor. 7. 14. else were your children unclean but now they are holy All these he sayes with Vossius Bullinger the Parliament with hundâ—eds more of the greatest lights the world hath had are meerâ— mistaken and that holiness of Children which is menti 〈…〉 1 Cor. 7. 14. is truly said by him to be onely matrimoniall s 〈…〉 iness or legitimation O infallible Oracle Credite me folium vobis recitare Sibylles we have found another Socrates but with this difference 1. The former was judged the wisest man by the Oracle of Apollo this by his own Oracle and opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I truly said The former was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissembling he knew nothing This other is plain-dealing professing in Mysteries the whole Church was ignorant of before he knowes all things I will not loose time nor blur paper about his Triviall criticism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it be the unbelieving husband is or hath been sanctified in or to or for the wife or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believing wife as Beza's Copies hath it Nor will I take advantage of his grant that it is easie for us to bring ten for one who interpret this Text as we do if we understand it of those who are called Calvinists though he thinks scarce so many of the Papists and Lutherans His impertinent quotation of Augustine Tom. 7. de peccat merito remission c. 26. who rejects not the Covenant-holiness but original holiness I will pass by his Acyrology or Catachresis that in impropriety or abuse of speech the sense might be as he conceived it most likely to be thus understood The unbelieving husband though an unbeliever is sanctified that is all one to his wife in respect of the lawfull enjoyment of him as her husband as â—f he were indeed sanctified to God because forsooth Piscator interprets some thing in the fore going verse so Neither will I take notice of the feebleness of his Argument taken from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies chastitie or to be chast therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie so and because it may signifie therefore it does signifie so because they all come from the same root which I believe is untrue for whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to worship as Jansenius would have it or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aretius in his Problems or from the Hebrew word signifying a feast as Pasor from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Beda and the best Grammarians it hath no affinity with the forementioned words These with a miscellanious â—ubbidg of much more I supersede whereby like the Limner that could not draw the picture to the life he casts a veil over the face of truth and with that General that durst not face his enimy raises a thick mist that he may march away in the dark But to his answer That 1 Cor. 7. 14. is meant only of matrimonial holiness or legitimation it was thus replyed That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for matrimonial holiness or legitimation cannot be so meant here but it is taken in Scripture almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for matrimonial holiness or legitimation therefore it cannot be so meant here In stead of answering he goes about 1. To disgrace this Argument and his Opponent saying it is out of Mr. Baxter What then May not I as well entertain truth from him as Mr. Tombes errour from Grotius the German Anabaptists and them of Alba-Julia Whose Monument he does not only prodigiously erect as Artimesia did of her husband Mausolus but with her drinks drown their very ashes Valer. Max. 171. That in England Ireland Scotland his Trophies are erected Barbara Pyramidum sileat miracula Memphis Secondly he sayes That in six hundred times in which holy is used in Scripture in none of them it is found for outward Covenant holyness entituling to Baptism Entitling to Baptism Is there any such thing in my Syllogism Look you never so strictly to that Gamester he will slir a die Etsi non aliquo nocùisset mortuus esset Let us see how he makes that good anon In the mean time observe how he manages his Bactrian like fight tergiversando shooting over his shoulders which he calls retorting and a right way of answering though it be called indirect by the Logicians What Logicians call it a right way of answering Seton in his Officio Respondentis sayes non est fas ut responsor ulla disputanti objiciat aut questiones proponat suum agat negotium id est objecta repetat repellat solvat It is not lawfull for the Râ—…pondent to object any thing to the Opponent or propound Questions let him tend his own business that is let him repeat the Objections repell unty them with him agrees Crakenthorp Burgersdicius and others Neither do I find any thing that makes for him in his sense its true Keckerman System Log. pag. 444. speaks of an indirect Syllogism which concludes by that which is indirect or absurd which by Aristotle lib. priorum cap. 2. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Syllogism bringing to that which is impossible And 2. priorum cap 15. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Syllogism of contraries but this is in the Opponent not unmannerly snatching from him by the Respondent howsoever not to be used to invert the order of the Dispute when there is another way of answering But to return to his retorting Syllogism That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for Covenant-holiness cannot be meant here but it is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for covenant-holyness Therefore it cannot be meant here I might deny his Major which may be false and mine in a contingent
the contrary thereof even bastards are comprehended but bastards are comprehended under holy seed therefore legitimation is not here meant The Minor is apparent because it is spoken to the whole Congregation whereof some were Bastards and bastard Israelites mingling with the Nations had joyned an unholy seed with a holy and fell under this reproof What Mr. Tombes talks of Jepthe makes him guilty of that he accuses others of running like Ahimaaz without his errand and fighting like the Antabatae with his eyes shut for he never eyes the Question which was not of Jephthe's saintship according to election but covenant-holiness for all he was illegitimate in his birth which gave him capacity to circumcision and other peculiar ordinances of Gods people whereby as the means he attained to be a Saint and justified by faith Hebr. 11. To this Argument Moses had children by the Aethiopian woman but they were not illegitimate Therefore those that were begot by mixture with the Nations were not illegitimate he grants the premises and implyedly the conclusion which is contradictory to his for all he sayes that the Aethiopian woman was not forbidden Not forbidden he means when he marryed her by that positive Law Deut. 7. 3. but long before her death why by virtue of that might not she and her children be put away as well as those in Ezra's and Nehemiah's time But were there not other lawes before that to keep their tribes entire without prophane mixture Nay visible remainders in the Law of nature for breach of which God with indignation expresses Gen. 6. 2. And the Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were faire and they took them wives of all they chose It was according to this light that Gen. 27. 46. Rebeckah said to Isaak I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth if Isaak take a wife of the daughters of Heth what good shall my life do me And Gen. 28. 8. Esau saw the daughters of Canaan pleased not his father Isaak This I think is sufficient to prove the Aethiopian woman was forbidden Howsoever after that law was given Salmon had children by Rahab who was a Canaanitess and Boaz by Ruth who was a Mobitess and yet they were not illegitimate or unholy in hâ—s canting language To which he answers Rahab though a Canaanitess Ruth a Moabitess when they joyned themselves to the God of Israel were not prohibited nor their children illegitimate which is true and enforceth this conclusion contradictory to his therefore this is the same with Covenant-holiness entituling to Church Ordinances not legitimation unless by consequence intituling to be reckoned in the Genealogy and inheritance of Israel for by being Proselytes they had equal interest to circumcision and all other Ordinances with the native Jewes And though it was an Appendix thereof to be capable of inheritance among the Jewes this can no more be called legitimation than the manumission of a servant that was not free before or the naturalizing of an Alien who was no Dennizen before can be so stiled Mr. Tombes 22. Section THe last Argument Mr. C. used was this They that Christ took up in his arms blessed and said the Kingdom of God belongeth unto them pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive them are holy with a Covenant-holiness But Christ took up little children into his arms blessed them said the Kingdom of God belonged unto them pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive them Therefore little children are holy with a Covenant holiness In this Argument I denyed the Minor after some debate about the way of forming of it in which I magined that fallacy I do not now upon sight deprehend and particularly I denyed that Christ pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive them Then he alledged Matth. 18. 2. Whence he argued They to whom belongs the Kingdom of Heaven are holy and in Covenant But to little children belongs the Kingdom of Heaven Therefore little children are holy and in Covenant In which Argument any Reader may perceive he proved not that I denyed That Christ pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive little children or Infants and yet that Text he alledged did not say of little cildren that to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven but those that were not to be offended v. 6. despised v. 10. were to be received in Christs name v. 5. were not little children in age but little ones in spirit which appeared in that they are said to be Believers v. 6. and to be converted and become as little children To which as the Relator himself sets it down Mr. C. said the meaning is not that the little children are converted which is a grant of what I alledged that the little ones not to be offended despised but received were not little children in age but affection of humility Mr. C. added But it hath relation to the disciples in the first verse who must be converted from their actuall sins and become as little children which have no actuall sin At which words it is true I said and that justly o how unhappy are the people that are seduced with these toyes are you not ashamed To which he replyed and it seems is not ashamed that it is printed I see nothing worthy of shame whereas if this speech of his were true then this is a truth except men be converted from their actuall sins and become as little children which have no actual sin they shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven for this is the meaning of Christs words Matth. 18. 3. according to Mr. C. interpretation which whosoever believes must of necessity despair of Heaven sith as James saith chap. 3. 2. in many things we offend all and John 1. Epist chap. 1. ver 8. If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and the Truth is not in us Reply IT was further evidenced which he calls the last Argument that Infants were holy with a Covenant-holiness thus they that Christ took up in his armes blessed said the Kingdom of God belonged unto them pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive them are holy with a Covenant-holiness But Christ took up little children into his armes blessed them said the Kingdom of God belongeth unto them pronounceth a curse upon those that despiseth and would not receive them Therefore little children are holy with a covenant holiness In this Argument he sayes he denyed the Minor and after some debate about the way of forming of it he imagined that fallacy he does not now upon sight deprehend It is well he acknowledges he hath not the spirit of infallibility he that sees his mistake in this one proposition may have his eyes further opened to discover his errour in the whole controversie His mistakes were two 1. In saying it was a fallacie of heaping many particulars together 2 a copulative proposition
brought it s in Luke 18. That he might touch them but in Matth. that he might lay his hands on them and pray now the laying on of hands especially when joyned with prayer is an Ordinance of institution in the Church of God named after the doctrine of Baptism Heb. 6. 1 2. and therefore if there be any strength in his way of arguing that from placing of words of institution one after another as baptizing after discipling or believing would prove that discipling and believing is to be first found in persons before they must be baptized Then the same Argument would prove that these Infants were formerly baptized because they â—ame for imposition of hands a right usually following mens baptism too in the practise of the Apostles as in Acts 8. 17. and 19. 5 6. Nor can Mr. Tombes give us any certain proof oâ— demonstration or ought besides his own presumtion they were not This he passes by now without salute as a fort impregnable and levels his shot against a place wherein he vainly conceives is a breach already Thrasâ—-like sounding a triumph before the victory for these are his words Bombardi-gladio-fun-hasti-flammi-loquentes that which Mr. C. added that the Disciples are believers which are meant Matth. 18. 6. and not the children and yet saith his Argument remains unanswered hath more of impudence in it To which I reply 1. That many understand even the sixt verse of little Children in age and then it will not so much as colourably make for him in any sense 2. Be it so as the Relator hath it that the Disciples were believers which are meant in the sixt verse and not children which the Grammatical construction seems to intimate because it is in the Masculine Gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one of these little ones answering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciple not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the neuâ—er gender agreeing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little child yet my Argument remains unanswered which was this to little children belongs the Kingdom of heaven therefore they are holy and in covenant Now it would be a strange inconsequence to say The little oneâ— v. 6 are Disciples not Infants in age therefore they are truly so v. 2. 3. to whom belongs the kingdom of heaven are not holy and in Covenant If such a fallacious non causa ut causa could stand he might infer quidlibet ex quolibet v. 2. Christ set a little child in the middest of them and said v. 3. except ye be converted and become as little children ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven they that were converted as little children to them belonged the kingdom of heaven therefore surely to little children their patterns as before especially seeing Christ in other Evangelists applies those words to little children themselves forbid them not to come unto me for of such is the kingdome of God But now I perceive his erroneous mistake for he sayes my Argument being that Christ pronounced a curse on them that received little ones in age and yet confessing that this was not meant of little ones in age but disciples believers in him it is the height of impudencie to say mine Argument was not answered when mine own confession answered it By this I see one errour begets many for 1. my Argument was not that Christ pronounced a curse on them that despised and received not little ones in age as hath been manifested that was indeed the last member of the proposition he excepted against which I promised to prove in its order But 2. grant it had been so my Argument for any thing appears yet remained unanswered for it would have followed â— minori ad majus from the lesse to the greater If Christ pronounced a curse upon those that despised he imitators of little children much more upon the despisers of little Children themselves Therefore Mark 10. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was moved with indignation against the Disciples for the little Childrens sake because they would have hindred them to come to him for a benediction By this it appears upon whom this height of impudency reflects The Areopagites at Athens had two stones erected in the Market place the one of impudencie the other of contumely Mr. Tombes hath a propriety in both these which he frequently ascends like that Timon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he may bestow his aâ—read-bare liveries upon those that discent from him in judgement of which he is liberal in the words following for sayeâ— he justly here after five hours time Skogan spewes crowes â—e should have said almost five hours or four and an half having promised but one and therefore a work of Supererrogation else to what purpose mentions he it Did he break off well it seems this adders head is crushed but capite eliso caudaminatur he waggs stil his taile and in the end thrusts out his sting to wound their reputation who had any dealing with him In this Argument beginning with me sayes he had experience of my meer cavelling at Rosse and Abergaveny At Rosse its true it fell out incidently that my place was to moderate but if we had been as many as there were Ephori at Sparta it had been impossible to bound him within the virge of a lawfull Dispute As for the Dispute at Abergaveny the relation thereof with his answer and my reply let others judge whether is the meer caveller But he dwelt many miles from that Town so did the Pharisees from sea and lands they compassed to make Proselytes perhaps he means that distance was disaduantagious unto him like Aâ—â—aeus whose strength was confined to his mother earth or the Samnites who were advised by the Oracle not to fight unless like snailes with their houses upon their backs But as Marcion said of the Orthodox and Catholick Fathers he finds nothing â—â— me and those other Paedobaptists he hath answered meaning Dr. Hamond Master Marshall Master Baxter Dr. Homes Dr. Featly Master Blake Master Cobbet Master Cotton with many more of the flour of our Nation but a spirit of wrangling when they have discovered by many infallible Symptoms this to be his very disease which he contumeliously imputes to others like the mad man in Bedlam that called all that passed by franticks Austin speaks of such an adversary of his Sermon 164. ego volo te esse sanum quare furis in me sicut insanuâ— Thus he goes on with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declamatory defamatory oration excusing himself for not answering my challenge for a deliberate Dispute than for any Dispute for the time to come accusing us that he was now sufficiently taught by experience what dealing he was like to have whereas the truth is he never yeilded to any Dispute for the time past but where he had the advantage resolved he would not for the future because he experimentally found with Paulus Samosatenus that he and his party lost by such engagements He hath found it to
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
ones and boyes These that were new born are the baptized in Scripture-phrase Tit. 3. 5. baptism is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of the new birth which to be so meant Master Mead in his Diatriba thinks none will deny Master Tombes 25. Section ORigens speeches are in the Latine books translated by Ruffinus into which many things were foysted by him and these its probable were so as being so express against the Pelagians nor do I find he was ever alleged by Austin who gathered the most antient testimonies he could for originall sin and infant-baptism Therefore saith Vosâ—ius in his Theses of infant baptism we less care for Origen because they are not in Greek Cyprian's testimony is granted to be in the third Century and Ambroses and Austins and the Milevitan Councils and inâ—umerable more but all upon the Popish errours of giving grace and the necessity to save a child from damnation Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian before him disswade from it except in case of danger of death in appearance near out of which case the antients did not baptize infants and in that case the Communion was given them But otherwise they baptized not infants no not of believing Parents till they came to years and then they were first Catechized in Lent and then solemnly baptized at Easter and Whitsuntide as may be gathered even from the Common Prayer Book in the Rubrick before Baptism Reply ORigen that lived in the beginning of the third Century sayes The Church received a tradition from the Apostles to baptize Infants and gives a reason because they are born in impurity of sin what is added is ingenuously confessed by Ruffinus the Translator himself Erasmus Perkins nor any that plays the Critick upon him impeaches him in the fore quoted place A negative argument from Scripture in matter of fact will not conclude shall Austins non-allegation then of Origen or which is more ridiculous Mr. T. not finding it disparage the authority of Origen Vossius in his Theses of infant baptism less cares for those parts of Origen that are not in the Greek yet does not wholly discard them some testimonies may be more authentick than others yet all creditable Pelagius a great Scholar who lived in the latter end of this Century Though he denyed Original sin yet confessed Infant-baptism for when they pressed him with this Argument If Infants had not Originall sin what need they baptism He answered that Christ appointed and the Church practised Infant-baptism not to purge sin by past but to prevent it for the time to come This Mr. T. ingenuously passes by as unanswerable and by silence gives consent Cyprian confirms it in his 59. Epistle to Fidus and gives an account of sixtie six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be baptized Ambrose sayes because every age is lyable to sin therefore every age is â—it for the Sacrament of Baptism Nazianzen sayes it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism though they know it not than to leave them unsealed Austin Serm. 15. de verb. Apost speaking of Infant-Baptism sayes The Church alwaies had it alwaies observed it received it from the faith of their Ancestors keeps it with perseverance to the end The Milevitan Councill decreed That whosoever should deny that Infants even taken from the Mothers wombs might be Baptized should be accursed All this he grants yet blasts it as his brethren of Transilvania did the Trinity with this infectious breath that they were all upon the Popish errours of giving grace and the necessity to save a child from damnation when Popery was not yet nor was this the errour of all or any of them finally as Dr. Hâ—mes hath proved or if it were shall the abuse of a thing take away the lawfull use much less the evidence of fact which is the Question How Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian before him disswades from it except in danger of death is formerly answered It was either Pagans or if believers to consult their bodyly health they did the like to young men unmarryed that were converted and widows neither do we find they prevailed in the least against the generall practice of Infant Baptism which was so inviolable that as the Question is stated I think he cannot shew one instance to the contrary If some gave them the Communion iâ— no more impeaches the lawfulness of their Baptism than the Jesuits joyning spittle Salt exorcism in Baptizing the Indians of years does Mr. T. supposed Baptism of believers That unless in danger of death the antients Baptized not Infants is as loud a lye as any is in the Golden legion Ovidâ— Metamorphosis or Lucians Dialogues The Rubrick of the Common Prayer book before Baptism makes no mention of Catechizing in Lent much less that believers Infants were not Baptized till they came to years but that the Sacrament of Baptism in the old time was not commonly ministred but at Easter and Whitsontide He that thus falsifies an evidence that every Boy or Girle that can but read may check him in Judge what he does with the Greek and Latine Fathers Mr. Tombes 26. Section IT is most false that all ages all Churches agree in infant baptism some Churches never had it Some Churches five hundred years agâ— of the godly and learned that then were did oppose it and practice the baptism of believers onely If Mr. Fox and others did account Anabaptists Hereticks it was for other Tenents than this Master Baxter himself saith no sober divine did ever reckon the Anabaptists as Hereticks meerly for the errour of rebaptizing plain Scripture proof c. part 1. chap. 1. yet Mr. C. bespatters Antipaedobaptism thus it robs the Scripture of its truth infants of their right Parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory Sure he hath learned the art of him in the Comaedian to calumniate boldly imagining something will be believed though there be not a word true But there is more of this venom behind That it is the mother of many other errours Hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Quakers Levellers they that are above ordinances Antiscripturians will any believe that from the Tenet which doth so stifly maintain an ordinance should spring the errour of being above ordinances Or that the errour of Antiscripturians should spring from that Tenet which doth sâ— strictly insiâ—t on the Scripture Let Mr. C. shew any the least connexion between Antipaedobaptism and the errours he names and he saith something else if onely the persons and not the Tenet be guilty of these errours he doth but calumniate He might with like reason say The Christian Religion is the Mother of many other errours hence sprung Ebionites Corinthians Nicholaitans Gnosticks c. such kind of criminations are most stinking and base slanders unworthy a sober minded man much more a Divine in the Pulpit speaking to many people who examine not but take all for true which such Rabbins talk with confidence
Reply IT is most true That all ages all Churches agree in Infant Baptism He cannot name one Church one particular Congregation that never had it I have already proved it a meer fiction that any Church five hundred years ago either opposed it or practised the baptism of believers onely Master Baxter challenges him to name one man that was against or did once question Church-membership of infants from the Creation till two hundred years ago and less which challenge is not yet answered To these I further added the harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches the Church of England in the Apology the old Catechism the twentie seventh Article the Directory the confession of faith the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and approved by the Generall Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland the late Parliament by a further Declaration all confirming it The Canons of our Church did not onely in former times declare but the Laws of our land did punish Anabaptists as Hereticks Master 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 wholy excludes the Anabaptists as erring fundamentally He passes by all these as Forts impregnable onely parlyes with Master Fox saying If he did account Anabaptists Hereticks it was for other Tenents than this to wit re-baptizing yes for denying Infants Church-membership Covenant-holiness and baptism which are enough But those are not all like Gad it goes with a Troop attending it But he relieves himself from Mr. Baxter crying quarter from an enemy who said no sober Divine did ever reckon the Anabaptists as Hereticks meerly for the errour of rebaptizing This will throw Master Tombes upon the horns of a dangerous Dilemma for if they be not Hereticks Master T. is no sober Divine for calling them Hereticks and a litter of grievous Wolves Treat of Scandals pag. 323. If he be a sober Divine Then they are Hereticks utrum horum let him choose whether he pleases But Mr. Tombs perhaps meant and Mr. Baxter sayes meerly for the errour of rebaptizing It s true There is Infant Church-membership and baptism besides which being denyed with making a party and division Mr. Baxter demonstrates monstrates how dangerous and hereticall it is Therefore I truly said Anabaptism with its attendants was a dangerous errour that robbes 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 whereof every word is true and free from the calumniating art of Machiavell studyed so much by the Anabaptists which he falsly attributes to the Comaedian In what Comaedy Asinaria I further averred at which he disgorges his venom That it is the Mother of many other errours hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Quakers Levellers they that are above Ordinances Antiscripturians for it stands with reason and Gods just judgement that Satan the Serpent having winded in the head by making them deny Infant baptism winds in further by degrees to the denyall of all baptism Communion Ordinances And having rejected plain Scripture-proof for Infants Church-membership and baptism are infatuated by degrees till they deny all Scripture According to Mr. Sidenham Anabaptism hath been alwaies ominous and of a wonderfull strange influence accompanied with the most dangerous retinue of errours since the first Embrio of it was brought forth whether from a judgement of God or from its naturall and secret connexion with other principles of darkness God hath shewed some black Characters on it in every Nation where it prevailed It is voyd of reason to say that the Christian Religion which is the Mother of truth should be the Mother of errour Ex veris nil nisi verum The Ebionites Corinthians Nicholaitans Gnosticks sprung from the corruptious of men transgressing Scripture-rule And it is somewhat blasphemous to compare Anabaptism to Christian Religion the one proceeding from the Holy Ghost the other from an impure Spirit The Helchesaits a kind of Anabaptists as Bullinger sayes adversus Anabaptist Cap. 2. did boast they had a Book sent from Heaven wherein mysteries were contained which whosoever heard read should have pardon of sins Nicholas Stock gave it out as Guy de Bres lib. 1. cont Anabapt That God spake to him by an Angel and revealed to him his will in dreams promising him the place of the Angel Gabriel Muncer told his Souldiers as Sleiden Comment lib. 5. God had revealed unto him that the day should be theirs Tuscoverer as Gastius sayes told the people God had revealed unto him that John of Leyden should have the Empire of the whole world Do not our Quakers Levellers those that are for a spirituall Monarchy which are all Anabaptists affirm the like And if Mr. T. must have a further connexion between Anabaptism and the errours I named it s this to use his own words They are the litter of the same Wolf fruits of the same Spirit which being their own confessions recorded by learned and Godly Authors are no criminations or base slanders but truths beseeming sober minded men and especially Divines in the Pulpit whose charge it is to look to their flock that they be not worryed by that litter of grievous Wolves Mr. Tombes 27. Section THe like I say of the Judgements of God Those in Germany were by war the events that have happened in our days should teach us to be sparing in our Judging Mr. Cottons speech was according to his prejudice Solomon Eccles 9. 1 2. Chr. Luke 13. 1 2 3 4 5. â—eacheth us more sobriety than so easily to pronounce of Gods judgements If we should judge of men and Tenents by outward judgements Job had been condemned justly One man had his house burned that did not sprinkle his child thousands have had their houses burned who did and perhaps upon occasion of that abuse by means of provision for the feast May not we as well say God thereby judged against infant sprinkling Thousands have prospered after their refusing to baptize infants thousands have falln into calamities after they have baptized them May not we this way as well decide for Antipaedobaptists as against them Divines that maintain the Scriptures to be their rule should not thus judge of what is true or false by Gods dealing with mens persons which is often upon secret reasons not discernable by us but by his word which is our rule and wherein he hath revealed his mind The rest of Mr. C. speech is as vain Doth this benefit come to Parents and children by infant baptism that God is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Heb. 11. 16. what a ridiculous conceit is this The text saith that through the faith of the persons it is that God is not ashamed to be called their God not their God and the God of their seed much less a word of infant