PRAECURSOR OR A FORERUNNER To a large Review of the Dispute concerning INFANT-BAPTISM Wherein many things both Doctrinall and personal are cleared about which Mr. RICHARD BAXTER In a Book MOCK-TITLED PLAIN SCRIPTURE-PROOF OF INFANTS CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP AND BAPTISM hath darkned the Truth By JOHN TOMBS B. D. LONDON Printed by H. Hils and are to be sold by H. Crips and Lod. Lloid in Popes-head Ally T. Brewster and G. Moule at the three Bibles at the West end of Pauls 1652. To the right Honourable Bulstrode Whitlock Richard Keble Serjeants at Law John Lisle Esq Lords Commissioners for the Great Seal of England Major General Thomas Harrison Edmund Prideaux Esquire Atturney General for the State of England Denis Bond Esquire THrough the influence of the favour of many of you as instruments of the Lord for my liberty to preach the Gospel and peace at the Temple in London I enjoyed sundry years in the late tempestuous times an unexpected calm until a new storm arising by reason of the violence of men bent to bear down dissenters from the determinations of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster by reason of the publishing my Examen of Mr. Marshals Sermon for Infant-baptism I was necessitated to leave the harbour I had at the Temple and to remove a great distance from London to the place of my nativity in which I hoped for a setlement which I found not For partly by the States selling my lands out of which my maintenance there arose and partly by reason of the alienating of mens spirits from me through the distance between me and the Antagonist I here answer I was in a great measure frustrated of my hopes But it pleased the Lord nevertheless to order things so that by the means of some of you as Patrons and others as helpers I enjoy a comfortable supply for my maintenance together with that which is dearer to me the liberty of holding forth the truth of the Gospel where I laboured many years heretofore In testimony of my thankful acknowledgement of that ample favour which it pleased some of you to vouchsafe me by your appearing for me and bounty to me at the Temple and testimonial of me at my departure thence the readiness of you all either to invest or to setle me in the maintenance I now enjoy that there may be something in your hands to vindicate me from injurious aspersions under which my self with the truth I avouch do suffer much I humbly presume to present this writing to your hands and praying that you may honor God in your places who hath raised you up to do him service I subscribe my self Your Honours humble and real servant JOHN TOMBES Lemster December 26. 1651. To the dearly beloved my Auditors formerly the Inhabitants of Bewdly in Worcestershire THe fame of the dispute between Mr. Baxter and my self at your Chappel Jan. 1. 1649. was at first spread over the land by Mr. Bs abusive passage in his Epistle before his book of The Saints everlasting rest to which I opposed an answer in my Farewell-speech to you and that it might be communicated to the Nation printed it with some additions in my Antidote which I intended in the first place for your use After this Mr. B. printed a large book for Infants-baptism framed in manner of a Sermon as intended and accordingly tendred in an Epistle to you In which how injuriously he hath dealt with me and how weakly he hath opposed the truth I taught you will appear in part by reading this Forerunner to the rest of the answer that is to come after I did presently upon my first reading of Mr. Bs. book in a set speech briefly shew you Mr. Bs. grounds and the reason why they were unsatisfying Yet neither my Antidote nor that speech do I find much regarded by many of you nor perhaps will this writing take much with you However I have conceived it necessary to tender this writing to you that it might thereby appear how vain the excessive boastings of Mr. Bs book have been how justifiable their receiving the truth who have yielded to it is and how inexcusable they are that persist in Mr. Bs. way What ever you think or speak of me yet I do and shall study your good and committing my labours for you and among you to the blessing of the Lord I rest Your loving Countrey-man and servant in Christ JOHN TOMBES Lemster Oct. 1. 1651. The Contents Sect. I. OF the necessity and occasion of this present writing Sect. II. That the Title of Mr. Baxters book is a mock-title Sect. III. Mr. Baxters citations from Fathers advantage him not Sect. IV. Mr. Baxters citations from my writings advantage him not Sect. V. Mr. Baxter unduly suggests many things in his Epistles Sect. VI. The chief points of Mr. Baxters book are very briefly touched Sect. VII Many personal occurrences are cleered by relating of which Mr. Baxter hath in his History sought to create prejudice against me Sect. VIII More personal matters which the History of Mr. Baxter hath made crooked are set straight Sect. IX In my alleging Peter de Bruis and others as Antipaedobaptists 500. years ago is no untrath Sect. X. That Mr. Baxters charge of accusing and of disputing my children out of the Church and Covenant of Christ is vain and some inquiry is made how they are in Covenant Sect. XI About Mr. Baxters 4. Texts urged impertinently to prove Infants visible Church-membership Sect. XII That Mr. Baxter unjustly chargeth me to be a Sect-Master Sect. XIII That it is not a right way to judge of the truth of doctrine by strange accidents though wonderous Sect. XIV That Mr. Baxter doth not rightly expound Christs rule Mat. 7. 15 16. nor is unholiness of men a note to know fals doctrine by Sect. XV. Mr. Baxters insinuations of the wickedness of Anabaptists is Calumniatory and vainly alleged to condemne their doctrine of Antipaedobaptism Anabaptists and with them my self are vindicated from charges of Schism neglect of the Lords day c. Sect. XVI The ground of my opposing Infant-baptism is confirmed by Mr. Baxter himself Sect. XVII The gross absurdities to which Mr. Baxter vaunted I was driven in the dispute Sect. XVIII The gross untruths Mr. Baxter chargeth me with are not such Sect. XIX The 6. imagined errors charged on me by Mr. Baxter are cleered from his censure Sect. XX. Many learned men with the Oxford Convocation of former later times take Infant-baptism only for an unwritten Tradition Sect. XXI Many things are cleared about my Conformity Anabaptists necessity to be baptized the manner of dipping used by them their standing to their confession of faith c. Sect. XXII The speech that no one Countrey is gathered into Christs visible Church containes no malignancy to-Christ but is a manifest truth ERRATA PAge 2. l. 13. debare reade debate p. 4. l. 14. specially r. speciously p. 5. l. 3. after r. afore p. 7. l. 7. contrary r. century p.
overthrew baptism of little ones yet he brought it not into publique because as Guitmund saies He knew That the eares of the worst men would not brook that blasphemy I also related a speech of the same Cassander concerning the Albigenses besides which in my Exercitation I alleadged the words of Lucas Osiander accusing the Albigenses as agreeing with Anabaptists And to shew that there was some reason for what I averred to wit that there were others that made head against infant-baptisme before Baltasar Pacimontanus I alleadged Bernard Serm. 66. in Cantica Epis. 240. to Hildefonsus Earle of St. Giles Petrus Cluniacensis his Epistle to three Bishops of France and in my Antidote sect 9. Eckbertus Schovangiensis his seventh Sermon adversus Catharos in Auctario Biblioth Patrum tom 2. Against these allegations Mr. M. excepts and Mr. B. le ts flie at me as before neither deny that I rightly cite the Authors But 1. That the Authors were lying Papists 2. That no impartial Authors so charge them 3. That they did bely them in other things 4 That upon report these with other things were charged on them 5. That the Councels charge them not with this 6. That other Historians charge not the Waldenses 7. That their confessions acquit them 8. That I do but joine with malicious Papists to take up any the falsest slander to defend my cause by it For answer hereto I will not return railing for railing but this I say and leave it to indifferent men if there be any to judge between us whether of us be in the right Cassander was never accounted that I ever read one of those railing lying Papists Mr. B. mentions but as impartial a man as any Papist living in his time Maximilian the second Emperour who favoured Protestants more then any Emperour prized him His study was reconciliation and a middle way which Mr. B. professeth to be his Mr. B. page 261. saith He spake the best of all parties that he might displease none Bernard is by Mr. B. himself page 265. stiled a pious man Petrus Cluniacensis was though a zealous Papist yet thought fit by Illyricus to be reckoned among Witnesses of Truth in his Catalogue They are as impartial Authors specially Bernard as that age yielded if these be not taken for witnesses of things in their times I know not how Protestants will make up their Catalogue of witnesses for them in all ages Protestant writers do frequently alledge these very Authors for other things Mornay in his Mysterie of Iniquity progress 46. cites these very writings against Papists I conceive Mr. M. Mr. B. think they said true when Bernard charged them that they derided prayer for the dead invocation of Saints Purgatory and Cluniacensis that they excepted against Altars adoring of Crosses the Masse chanting inquires praying for the dead If they be to be believed in so many why not in this which they put first Lucas Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 12. lib. 3. cap. 3. anno Christi 1158. cites Cluniacensis for the same thing Eckbertus saith when he was Canou at Bon he with his Companion Bertoly did often speak with them whom he refutes sayes in his Sermon that they alleadged against Infant-baptisme Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. Though I make no question but that they bely them at least some of them in other things some upon report as Cluniacansis that they denyed some of the Scripture it may be saith Osiaander because they denyed the Apocryphal writings or perhaps because they denied arguments valid from the rites of the old Testament some upon false inferences which is a frequent thing in writers to make the consequences they gather from their writings the tenets of the Authors they impugne some it may be out of that abuse of charging those tenets and practises upon all of the same profession which is too true of some as that all Christians did lewd practises because the Gnosticks did so that all Anabaptists are wicked because those of Munster Copp and some others proved so in which way Mr. B. walkes page 138. c. for which the Lord forgive him yet it seemes utterly unlikely to me that in this Petrus de Bruis and Henricus and their followers should be belied when so many of chief account in their time from several places charge them with denying infant-baptisme and rebaptizing Petrus Cluniacensis writes to 3. Bishops of France and Bernard to the Earle of St. Gyles of purpose against them for this reason Bernard and Cluniacensiis put it for their prime error Petrus Cluniacensis and Eckbertus produce and take on them to answer their allegations against infant-baptisme but not so as I remember any allegations against the Scriptures or Marriage which they charge them to deny and therefore it 's likely they wrong them in these not in that As for the Albigenses and Waldenses it might be true that some might be against Infant-baptisme yet others not some following Peter de Bruis others Waldus as it was in the reformation when some followed Luther others Zwinglius in the points of the Eucharist Images c. or it may be that they all at the beginning held so but after left it which seemes to be the conceit of Cassander ubi suprà And yet in the old book wherein their doctrince is cited by Illyricus in his Catalog test verit printed Argentinae 1562. pag. 3 4. there are some speeches which Illyricus is faine by glosses to free from the opinion of Antipaedobaptisme But whether the Waldenses were Antipaedopatists or no what I did alleadge was rightly done not with a brazen face or seared conscience or out of a desire to take up any slaunder or joine with any party to defend my cause as Mr. B. doth most unbrotherly insinuate yea in my Examen part 2. sect 2. before I cite Bernard and Cluniacensis I have these words Now although he charge them with denying marriage abstaning from meates yet you may smell out of his own words that this was but a calumny but because by the reasons given I am induced to conceive notwithstanding Mr. Ms. and Mr. Bs. allegations that Peter de Bruis and Henricus and other godly persons and societies were 500. yeares ago Antipaedobaptists yea I conceive as good a catalogue of Antipaedobaptists may be made almost in all ages as may be made for Protestants against many Popish corruptions and better then Antiprelatists can make against Episcopacy And this I dare still to do and marvel Mr. B. dare bring such railing accusation to which I onely returne The Lord rebuke him The other untruth if not malice Mr. B. chargeth me with is concerning my dealing with himself when I had in my Valedictory Sermon and Antidote shewed how impertinently the 2. monsters in New England were brought as evidences of Gods judgements against Anabaptists I added in my Sermon one of the errors condemned in New England is the 21. To be justified by faith is to be justified by works
I pray with him may perish of schism or zeal for it I am not conscious that truth I avouch will stand when Mr. Bs. rotten pillars fall to the ground To many questions and charges in sundry pages 213. c. an answer may be gathered from what is said before SECT XIX The six imagined errors charged on me by Mr. B. are cleered from his censure MR. B. addes a confutation of six of my pretended errors The first was onely a speech of mine in conference on occasion of Mr. Bs. words in a Sermon which were taken to be a fling at me and my meaning was this that the truth I maintained and such like being about a thing of frequent practise so that by reason of ignorance sin will be committed were not to be concealed when if it be it is like to be lost for the peace of the Church that is to prevent differences in opinion and the breaches in communion that by reason thereof do by accident from the corruption of men fall out Mr. B. opposeth it as if I meant a man must not suspend any truth of the Scripture no not though a total breach bringing bloodshed ruine c. follow yea by his last argument he would insinuate as if it would follow on my tenet that every one that doth but think it is a truth that Christ is not God that there is no God c. that he will think himself bound to reveale it to the world though it turne all to confusion and after his satyrical veine saith He that had rather see the Church in this case then his doctrine of Anabaptistry should be concealed is good for nothing but to make an Anabaptist of that I know To which I answer my meaning in that speech of mine was this that no truth of God that a person is certain is such and can demonstrate so to be which concernes the faith or practise of Christians through concealing of which they shall erre and sin is to be concealed when a person may perceive by circumstances that if he conceale it at such a time the contrary will be established and so truth be lost in the eye of reason though much trouble follow thereon And this I resolved heretofore in my book of scandals chap. 4. sect 20. not that I know of excepted against by any ground on Pauls words Gal. 2. 5. avouched by many Divines and without which the Waldenses Hussites Protestants will be condemned for opposing the Monkish profession halfe communion c. though warres followed thereon And our present and former non-conformists will be deeply guilty of sin in opposing the Prelacy ceremonies canons c which hath been one cause of the great troubles of the land which have proved greater then any raised by the Anabaptists And so far as many prudent men can discerne many of the Presbyterian Ministers of the land do as little regard the peace of this land at this time through discontent that they want the establishment of discipline after their mind as any Anabaptist heretofore did And I presume they that sit at the sterne do find the so called Anabaptists as faithful to the publique cause as their opposites As for the two next errors about others then Ministers baptizing and administring the Lords Supper Mr. B. delivers as much himself as the errors pretended affirm in these words page 221. In a case of necessity as if people were in the Indies where no Ministers can be had if any fay that it is better a private man baptize and adminster the Lords Supper then wholly omit them I will not deny it and he gives two reasons But faith he Mr. T. speaks it in reference to our ordinary case in England Concerning which I answer that for baptizing it is true I speak in reference to the case in England all or most of the Ministers ordained being against baptizing of persons of years sprinkled in infancy and there lying upon them that see infant-baptisme a corruption a necessity to be baptized upon profession of faith there is a necessity that they be baptized by persons not ordained by laying on of hands of the Presbytery though I do conceive laying on of hands an ordinance in force from 1 Tim. 5. 23. and 4. 14. Act. 13. 3. Heb. 6. 2. Nor do I like the argument from Numb 8. 10. to prove that non-preaching elders may lay on hands conceiving no Mosaical ordinance concerning any positive ceremonial rite belonging to the Jewish service is a rule to us now and therefore do wish there were either by authority or consent of Churches some way of restoring it till which I see a necessity that persons not ordained yet preachers of the Gospel do baptize But for administring the Lords Supper though I acknowledge it most fit in many respects it should be received some Minister ordering it not so much for the consecrating of the Elements as they call it by vertue of office as for the comely and edifying dispensing of it by prayer and exhortation the ordinance being holy and to be performed with much reverence to which none are so fit as a Minister that is set apart for the word and prayer yet whereas it is claimed as a part of the Ministers office to be Minister of the Sacraments or as they call them seales and it is aggravated as if it were the sin of Uzzah or Uzziah for any else to do it and too much I think is ascribed not onely by Papists but also by others to the power of order and many require it as a Ministers duty to give them the Sacrament and if Mr. Bs. doctrine be good in his treatise of the Saints rest page 651. Their being baptized persons or members of the universal Church is sufficient evidence of their interest to the Supper till they by heresie or scandal blot that evidence Ministers cannot deny it them without instustice and hereupon many perplexities are in Ministers about giving the Lords Supper and perplexities in receivers from whom they receive it it being taught that they do justifie their Ministery and own them as their Ministers who receive the Lords Supper from them and it is taught that Ministers have a power to deny some the seals and this is made a chief part of their government I have I confesse said and I think it still true that a company of believers though they have no Minister ordained in case of want of an ordained Minister may some one or more in holy and seemely manner by giving thanks praying and declaring the end and use of that rite and guiding the action remember the Lords death in breaking bread and this may be truly a Sacrament as it is called and acceptable to God if performed with a holy heart And my chief ground is because whereas it is made one of the chief disorders in eating the Lords Supper at Corinth 1 Cor. 11. 20 21. that in eating every one took his own Supper before other
this could not have happened if they had been wont to receive it from a Minister that distributed to all and when the Apostle to rectifie the abuse sets down what he received of the Lord ver 23. he speaks not a word of a Ministers duty to regulate them or of Christs appointing it as a part of his office to distribute it nor gives any direction to that end but only ver 33. that they tarry one for another and not eat till they came together whereas if it did then belong to the Minister to distribute the direction should have been given to him not to distribute till they came together If it be said as Saravia against Beza that there were then Presbyters at Corinth though I conceive it not likely but the contrary rather manifest from 1 Cor. 1. 7. 6. 4. 12. 28. 14. 29. Yet it serves the more to confirme my opinion that then it was not counted the Ministers office to deliver the Lords Supper and that it might be without a Minister ordained sith they did receive it then 1 Cor. 10. 16. yet I acknowledge that it is very antient that the Minister called the President did order the Lords Supper as I gather from Justin Martyrs Apolog. 2. ad Antoninum where he sets down the order of the Christian service in his time And I am against the altering it because of the antiquity of the use and the confusion likely to follow on the alteration But being urged by Mr. B. and others in the manner abovesaid it is necessary that the point be examined Mr. B. argues thus 1. He that administreth the Lords Supper in breaking the bread delivering it to all bidding them take eate c. must represent the Lord Jesus who did all this at the institution But onely Ministers and no private men are persons who should represent the Lord Jesus in Church-administrations Therefore onely Ministers and no private men may administer the Lords Supper To which I answer 1. in Church-administrations in the Minor is added which was not in the Major and so there are four termes and the argument faulty 2. But waving that exception because it may be quickly rectified I deny the Minor understanding as Mr. B. doth by a Minister a Presbytery ordained by laying on of hands For to speak of the Ruling elders Church-administrations or the preaching of persons not in office of which anon It is certain that Deacons have Church-administration who are not Presbyters yea it is manifest out of antiquity that the Deacons did deliver the Elements in the Lords Supper and Rogers on Article 23. of the Church of England prop. 3. saith at Geneva the elder a lay-man ministreth the cup ordinarily at the Communion and therefore Ministers did and might represent Christ at least in that part of Church-administration But Mr. B. goes about to prove the Minor thus Ministers onely are called his Embassadors Stewards of his mysteries and beseech in his stead c. Answer 1. I think that those mentioned Act. 8. 4 5. of whom Philip was then onely a Deacon as many of the Antients hold not onely Apollos but also Aquila and Priscilla Acts 18. 26. Frumentius that converted the Indians and the captive maid that brought the Iberians to the faith were Embassadours of Christ and Stewards of his mysteries and might beseech in his stead 2. But were it granted that Ministers only are called Christs Embassadours c. how is it proved that they onely should represent Christs person in breaking the bread delivering it to all bidding them take eate c. Doth the Embassage of Christ dispensing of his mysteries beseeching in his stead c. consist in breaking bread delivering it bidding take eate c If it do then a non-preaching Minister who doth these things may yet be an Embassadour of Christ and Steward of his mysteries then the breaking bread c. is a converting ordinance as Mr. Pryn held which Mr. Gillespy and Mr. Rutherford deny For my part I think to be an Embassadour of Christ and to beseech in his stead 2 Cor. 5. 20. to be a Steward of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. are all one as to preach the Gospel and that the Assembly did misallege the text 1 Cor. 4. 1. as they have done the other to prove that neither Sacrament may be dispensed by any but a Minister of the word lawfully ordained Confession of faith chap. 27. sect 4. For mysteries of God never signifie Sacraments in Scripture but the Gospel Ephes. 6. 19. Rom. 16. 25. Chamier panstrat Cath. tom 4. l. 1. c. 4. sect 9. in Scripturis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usurpari pro ipso rei sacrae signo profectò imposturaest But Mr. B. tells me It is a silly answer of Mr. T. that Sacraments are not called mysteries of God For the word preached neither is not the mystery it self but a revealing and exhibiting that mystery and so are the Sacraments The one revealeth them to the eare and the other to the eye Answ. Sure if the answer be silly the refutation is no better For if the word preached be not the mystery it self then neither is the Sacrament much lesse the breaking the bread and delivering it and so to be Steward of the mysteries of God is not to be breaker and deliverer of the bread and wine in the Lords Supper But however Mr. B. grants that though the word preached be not the mystery it self yet it is the revealing and exhibiting of the mystery and that the sense undoubted of 1 Cor. 4. 1. Stewards of the mysteries of God is revealers of the mystery of God by preaching the word But then saith Mr. B. the Sacrament revealeth the mystery of God to the eye I reply Mr. B. saith so but not one text of Scripture saith so nor is it true The mystery containes not onely the thing done by Christ but the end use reason of it but this is perceivable onely by the understanding and the Sacrament abstractively from the word declares it not no not so much as a picture and therefore the Sacramental actions of themselves are not revelations of the mystery of Christ nor ever so called in Scripture and therefore I conclude that the text 1 Cor. 4. 1. doth not prove that it is the peculiar office of an ordained Presbyter to Minister the Lords Supper by breaking bread delivering it to all bidding take eat c. And though the title of Minister of the Gospel be used in the New Testament yet the title of Minister of the Sacraments is a made title 2. Saith Mr. B. If there be no command or example in Scripture of any but Ministers administring the Lords Supper then no other may do it But there is no command or example in Scripture of any other doing it they that say there is let them shew it Answ. I find this command 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and