The fourth untruth is that Infant-baptism was not commanded by Christ which neither Master T. nor any other Antipaedobaptist will ever be able to prove seeing the Commission extends as well to baptism of Infants as other ages Math. 28. 19 20. Thus says Christ all power is given me in Heaven and Earth go ye therefore Disciple ye all the Gentiles or all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost Wherein four things are considerable 1. The ground of the Commission all power is given me in Heaven and in Earth 2. The act Baptize 3. The object all nations 4 The End make Disciples all these agrees as well to Children as them of riper years First the ground of the Commission all power is given me in Heaven and in Earth as if our Saviour had said I that was virtually impowered from the beginning am now actually after my resurrection invested with authority and Lordship as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man over all creatures to order and dispose them as I please but especially mankind to save that lost sheep that was gone astray to lay him upon my shoulders and bring him home unto the fold And my Commission extends as to save some of all ages conditions sexes so to create new Ordinances that may relate unto all even Infants and sucklings as well as the antient seeing they may be also the Lambs of my Flock Secondly here is the Acte baptize that is as the Jews Children and Proselytes were admitted into Covenant by Circumcision oblation and washing which was but their Typicall so those that are Candidati and designati sanctitatis whether those that are willing to receive the Ordinance or their children are to be initiated by baptism or washing which is to be the outward badge or Character of my Covenant Thirdly here is the object all Nations or all the Gentiles that is all degrees all ages all sexes of every Nation as capable not onely of the inward Call but the outward Character Psalm 28. 8. God hath given all Nations to Christ for hâ—s inheritance Isai 49. 7. his salvation is to the end of the earth Acts 4. 11. no other name is given under Heaven by which they can or may be saved The Extent of the Commission for baptizing is as large among the Gentiles as was among the Jews where it is Luke 3. 21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the people and shall we conceive that Infants were no part of all the people of all the Nations of so many families Fourthly here is the end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples or ye shall make Disciples Now every action is to an end and to make Disciples is the end to enroll them by Baptism and afterwards to teach them is the means Disciple or Scholar is a term of relation the Correlative that Answers it is Christ every Disciple is a Scholar of Christ These are Relata disquiparantiae The fundament or ground of the relation is Gods love to enter into Covenant the formall reason of a Disciple is the union betwixt the Scholar and the Master expressed by some token or badge of admission Thus we are Discipled or admitted Scholars by baptism into Christs School whereof some Actively knowing something of Christ before they be discipled as Peter Andrew James and John called from their nâ—ts and all that are of age ought to be willing to entertain Christ before they be baptized some passively as Children that are put to School by their Parents before they know a Letter thus Infants are matriculated into Christs School without their own express consent or any present capacity to be taught of men but of God who hath promised to take care of them and teach them we shall all be taught of God especially Infants who being not capable of the Instrumentall must wholely depend upon the principall efficient but of this by the way I shall have occasion to search this further hereafter The fifth untruth is that Infant-baptism was not practised by the Apostles which being denyed by the Anti-Paedobaptists the proof lyes upon them which they will performe ad Graecas Calendas A Negative Argument in matter of fact of this nature is of no validity no mention is made â—â— express termes that the Apostles baptized infants therefore they baptized none is inconsequent it might fall out oft de facto that they baptized none but of ripe age as preaching to publick Congregations who had travalled far to hear them might baptize those that were willing and yet have no leisure to go from house to house to baptize their Infants yet it will not follow that de Jurâ— they might not have baptized them or that they did not actually baptize them when there was opportunity When John baptized in Jordan all Judea and Jerusalem Math. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came as the word properly signifies by water of which coming Infants are capable The Apostles had Commission to Disciple all Nations by baptizing of which Infants are a principall part as was fore-prophesied Isai 2. 2. all nations should flow in they baptized many whole families upon the faith and account of the chief of the house Zacheus believed and salvation came to his house They baptized Lydia and her houshold Acts 16. 15. mention is onely made that her heart was opened and that she attended to the things that were spoken not one word of the rest of her familie and yet the text says they were baptized This Argument would be far more concluding no mention is made that any of Lydias houshold attended to the word but she therefore they were baptized without giving attention to the word Then this no mention is made that any Infant was baptized in her houshold therefore none was baptized It will follow as well no mention expresly is made that her sons or daughters or servants or sojourners were baptized therefore they were not baptized Generals includes particulars houshold is a collective term and comprehends all the members and branches of a Familie And seeing the Apostles were commissioned to baptize all Nations and questionlesse did execute accordingly All Judaea and Jerusalem came to be baptized of John Peter and the twelve baptized so many families upon record and doubtlesse thousands besides how dare any incurre that curse of God by diminishing of the word and make that exception God never made that the Apostles baptized all Nations and whole families and yet by an implyed contradiction excluded Infants The sixt untruth is thâ—t there were not any Infants baptized in the first ages which is an asseâ—tion so frontlesse that it needs no other refutation but what hath been formerly delivered Mr. Tombes hath rather shifted than in the least colour answered many learned and godly Divines that have proved the constant practise of Infant-Baptism in the primitive Church by induction of the Authorities of several Fathers to that purpose like the Angels in Jacobs ladder Gen. 28.
and that you know well enough but that in place of solid Satisfaction you must say something to deceive the people The Arguments I raise hence are two the first is this There shall be no more an Infant of dayes that is Infants shall not be uncapable of the seal while their age is measured by dayes as the Jâ—ws Infants that might not be Circumcised till a week had passed over them Therefore Infants new born are capable of the seal The second Argument is this The child shall dye an hundred year old that is as an hundred year old or as well a Church-member as if he were a hundred year old Therefore Children may be Baptized under the Gospell T. Mr. T. found fault with that interpretation shall dye an hundred years old that is as if an hundred years old C. He answered to take it literally would imply a contradiction for it was impossible to be a child and a hundred years old and was better than his and the Anabaptists exposition of 1 Cor. 10. 2 they were Baptized under the Cloud that is say you as if they were Baptized under the cloud when nothing hindred out they were really Baptized under the cloud And Rom. 11. 19. the branches were broken off that is say you as if they were broken off when it was both possible and apparent that they were broken off T. Then Mr. T. said it was not meant of the times of the Gospell C. To which was replyed Mr. T. will still be wiser than the Church of England and read the Contents of the Chapter The calling of the Gentiles v. 1. the Jews rejected 17. the blessed state of the new Jerusalem to the end T. Mr. T. said it was verifyed Zacha. 8. 4 Thus saith the Lord of Hosts there shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem and every man with his staff in his hand for very age and the streets of the Citie shall be full of boyes and girles playing in the streets thereof C. To which was replyed what is this to an Infant of dayes or a child dying a hundred years old when it is apparent both from the Contents and Texts that this of Zachary is meant of the Jews return from Captivity and more apparent that that of Es is meant of the state of Christs kingdome under the Gospell which I prove thus That Interpretation that brings with it absurditie untruth blasphemie is not to be admitted But to â—nterpret it of the Jews return from Captivitie brings with it absurditie untruth blasphemie Therefore it is not to be admitted T. Mr. Tombs denyed the Minor C. Which was proved in order first that it brought with it absurdity To apply the 25. verse to the return from Captivity was absurd that the wolf and the lamb should feed together and the Lion should eat straw with the bullock and dust should be the serpents meat Therefore it brought with it absurdity Secondly that it brought with it untruth But to apply the 19. v. to the return from Captivity brought with it an untruth that the voice of weeping should be no more heard in Jerusalem for it was twice destroyed after once by Antiochus then by Vespatian and Titus Therefore it brought with it an untruth Thirdly that it brought with it blasphemie for to interpret the 17. verse Behold I create new heavens and new earth and the former shall no more be remembred and come into mind of the second temple is blasphemous Therefore it brought with it blasphemie for it crosseth St. Peters interpretation 2 Pet. 3. 13. We according to his promise look for new heavens and a new earth For can any rationall man think that the new temple built at Jerusalem in Cyrus his time was this new heaven and new earth that the former should be no more remembred When the antient men are said to weep because the glory of the latter temple was short of the glory of the first Ezra 3. 12. It was inferiour to Solomons temple first in respect of the building that was lower and meaner secondly in respect of the vessels before of Gold now of Brass thirdly of five things that were lost first the Ark of God secondly the Urim and Thummim thirdly fire from Heaven to consume the Sacrifices fourthly the glory of God between the Cherubims fiftly the gift of prophesie for after the second temple there was no prophet T. Mr. T. fell to his wonted course of impertinent exposition wherein Mr. C. told him he violated the rules of dispute and did lasciviously wanton it out into a wilderness of words that the truth might be obscured or lost and like a lapwing carry the hearers far from the matter Then C. P. an Apothecary began to interpose as he had done once before till a gentleman of authorite told him that it was not fit for a man of his place and calling to speak Yet Master Tombs would not be satisfyed but went on saying that Dr. Prideaux in Oxford when a place of Scripture was cited was wont to give a large exposition C. Mr. C. Replyed that Dr. Prideaux was Doctor of the Chair and Judge of the Controversie and might do that which a Respondent may not do whose office is onely to repeat deny distinguish and when a Text is quoted to give a brief exposition that the Opponent may have something to fasten upon And what Dr. Prideaux did he knew not but what Dr. Collins and Dr. Ward did he could tell him but that it was not to the present purpose And that his judgement in this was but the same with his own University of Oxford as he knew of late by a sad experiment T. Mr. Tombes Asked what that was C. He told him an explosion not for disability for his dispute was plausible inough but that he would neither be satisfied with Dr. Salvage his answer nor the Doctor of the Chairs determination but fell to repetitions and extravagances as now Mr. Tombes launched into a tedious discourse to vindicate himself till he had tyred the Auditors who cryed out this is but to waste time And a learned Gentleman spake aloud this is but to spend the time in parling that he may avoid the gunshot for he is affraid the great thunderbold is behind and so with much adoe he was brought to dispute again where Master C. falling upon the third branch of his Argument That God did actually receive Infants to be Church-members under the Gospell began thus C. Those whom Christ commanded his disciples to Baptize they may be Baptized But Christ commanded his Disciples to Baptize infants Therefore they may be Baptized The Minor being denyed was proved thus He that commanded his Disciples to baptize all Nations commanded them to baptize infants But Christ commanded his Disciples Matth. 28. 19. to baptize all Nations Therefore Christ commanded them to baptize infants T. Mr. T. denyed the Major C. Which was proved by this Enthymema The whole includes every part Infants
true light of discovery First that the assignation of the causes of Anabaptism are vain This he affirms yet names not one of them but turns his back as the Souldier did from Augustus Caesar because he could not endure the darting beams of his eys Oppressing Nâ—mrods uses to send witnesses out of the Country that would overthrow their cause so he having suppressed the reasons of the present grouth of Anabaptism calls them vain yet they shall once more appear at the bair against him which we submit to the judgment of intelligent and impartial Christians they are these 1. Times of division wherein the hedge of discipline is broken down liberty in religion is like free conversing without restraint or watch in time of pestilence one house easily infects a whole City 2. Satans malice like a river the further it goes the deeper and fiercer 3. The corruption of mans nature more inclinable to errour than truth 4. The fitness of the engin for devastation and ruinating all former Churches under colour of first baptisms nullity gathering of new ones after their own mould out of the old ruines by rebaptizing 5. The pretence that children are uncapable of Church-membership or communion of Saints as if there were not the same capacity under the Gospel which was under the law 6. False allegation that Infant-Baptism is occasion of loose living as if the native Jewes that were sealed when Infants were more dissolute than the Proselites 7. To limit it to ripe years increases piety as if Jewes and Turks and their rebaptized converts were not more frequently guilty of Apostacie and hipocrisie 8. Not understanding that Infants Church membership in the Old Testament is not repealed but confirmed in the new 9. A carnal estimation that the Covenant made with Abraham was partly carnal of which circumcision is a part as if godlinesse in both Testaments had not the promise of this life and of the life to come 10. That circumcision was the seal of righteousness of faith to Abraham and not his posterity 11. That the Covenant was made with Abraham and his spiritual seed only and not with visible professors 12. That there is no such thing as national Churches though Christ sayes make disciples of all Nations and Isaiah sayes all Nations shall flow in yet they say all Churches must be gathered by actual profession as well in Christian Nations as amongst Turks and Pagans 13. Because we have no particular instance in Terminis that any Infants were baptized and because they are not expresly named in the precept as if generals did not include particulars as well for Infants as old men 14. Denying equivalencies and necessary consequencies from Scripture 15. A vilifying the judgment and persons of all godly and learned men of this present and former ages building up their rotten foundation upon their ruines 16. Temporal interests of the lowest of the people which while they dream it is countenanced by men in power cry Hosanna and perhaps crucifie to morrow 17. A pretending to the Spirit of God Numa Pompilius feigned that he conversed with the goddess Egeria Minos with Jupiter in the Cave Solon with the Delphian Apollo Mahomet with the Angel Gabriel Montanus and the Quakers with the Holy Ghost the white Witches with the spirit in the shape of a dove and all but to palliate their unsound opinions and practises 18. The learning subtilty and industry of some Anabâ—ptists to gain Proselytes Arrius Pelagius Marcion were not wiser in their generation than they to invegle the poor simple people especially women and inferiour tradesmen which in seven years can scarce learn the mystery of the lowest profession thinks half seven years enough gained from their worldly imployments to understand the mistery of Divinity and thereupon meddle with controversies that they have no more capacity to pry into than a bat to look up into the third heaven Thus farr the assignation of the reasons of Anabaptism which he sayes are vain a censure how just let wise men judge who clearly see that the meeting of several beasts at Nilus does not more properly beget new Monsters nor putrefaction ingender several vermins than the fore-assigned reasons occasion the grouth and increase of Anabaptism The second Allegation is that Anabaptism is true Baptism A strange Paradox which either implies that Infant-Baptism is a nullity or that true baptism may be iterated or received more than once The confutation of the former is the scope of this present treatise rectum sui curvi index The latter that true Baptism may be iterated as the notation of the word and their practise interprets it is now to be questioned And that I fight not with the ayre or an adversary of mine own framing may appear from Mr. T. who examen pag. 23. begges an Argument of Mr. Martial to prove reiteration of Baptism to be intrinsecally unlawfull and that in the tone of the Marcionites and Aetians who in several Councells have been whipt for it and have received these and the like reasons for their pasport 1. In the institution of Baptism there is neither expresly nor consequently any mention of reiteration of it as in the Lords Supper Quotiescunque feceritis as often as ye shall do it c. and whatsoever is not of faith is sin whatsoever is not grounded on Scripture is will-worship there is no instance or president in Scripture that any one was baptized twice for those Acts 19. 3. 4. were either first baptized metonymically that is initiated with the doctrine of John and then afterwards baptized with water as some say or adulteratly baptized with false Baptism as Ambrose thinks and then with true Baptism or baptized first with John's Baptism and then with Christs which as Austin conceives are two distinct Baptismes or which is most consonant to the Text first baptized by John with water then by the Apostle with the Holy Ghost and fire that is the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost None of these make for the reiteration of the same baptism besides there is express Scripture against it Ephes 4. 5. one Lord one faith one Baptism 2. Baptism is the Sacrament of regeneration or new birth and as Austin hath it as we are carnally and naturally born but once so we are spiritually and supernaturally new born but once faith though it admit of grandations begins but once Baptâ—sm that matriculates us into Christs Schole is to be performed but once Therefore even Cyprian himself and his followers never baptized any whom they thought were truly baptized before 3. Baptism succeeds Circumcision which was but once administred as appears from that of Joshuah 5. 4. where the Holy Ghost gives this reason why Joshuah circumcised the Israelites in Gilgal Because all the circumcised were dead intimating if they had been circumcised already it should not have been done again And seeing circumcision was tyed to the eight day from the birth till a second eight day besides the first can
the internal and spiritual part may be made intentionally to Infants as the spiritual seed of believers and yet the external part and that of Ordinances to Infants as the natural seed of believers as well under the Gospel as under the Law That under the Law it is apparent by the History of the Old Testament confirmed by that of Pâ—â—â— Galat. 2. 15. We who are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles And Rom. 4. 12. Where Abraham is said to be the Father of circumcision to them that are not of circumcision onely but also walk in the steps of his faith which implies that he was the Father of them who are of circumcision onely and walk not in the steps of his faith The same reason is of the Gospell unless they were two distinct covenants and essentially different and that made with Abraham and his seed carnall as the carnall Anabaptists affirme which absurdity supposes it little better comfort for Abraham and his seed to have such a portion onely sealed to him than Turks and Tarters enjoy who were never in covenant with God True in the covenant there was a promise of Canaan and temporal blessings but yet the covenant was in the main spiritual Rom. 4. â—1 else we should make the Jewes little better than the beasts that perish as some grosse Anabaptists do So Calvine well observes Judaeos adeo carnales nobis depingunt ut pecudum similiores sunt quà m hominum Calvin Instit lib. 1. c. 16. s 10. The covenant of free grace that God made with Abraham in Christ is an everlasting covenant and stands more firme than the pillars of the earth or the poles of the heaven hence God himself calls it an everlasting covenant Gen. 17. 7. and that it is not meant of any limitted time is put out of doubt Isai 54. 8. 10. With everlasting kindnesse will I have mercy on thee saith the Lord thy Redeemer and the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed but my kindness shall not depart from thee neither shall the Covenant of my peace be removed saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee So that the Gospel Covenant for substance is still in force to the natural seed of Beleevers though not as natural but natural of Believers as well as under the Law And though the Jewes had priority in the Covenant yet not sole propriety for the Gentiles becoming visible professers they and their Infants did partake in it whosoever fears the Lord his children were Olive plants as well as theirs Psalm 128. 1. 3. Master Tombes 7. Section ANd for that which he saith This unchurcheth the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation if he mean by Christendome all that are commonly called Christians I grant it if the Infants be the one half of them and their unchurching be in respect of visible Church-membership but count it no absurdity Nor do know what ordinary means of Salvation he conceives they are left without except Baptism which I take not to be an ordinary means of salvation without faith and therefore think it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of salvation which are the preaching the Word c. Yet are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit Reply MAster Tombes denying the consequent of the Major that though the Covenant of the Gospel was a better Covenant than that under the Law yet Infants were not in covenant as well under the Gospel as under the Law which in the Dispute was thus taken away That which unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation cannot be a better Covenant to deny Infants to be in covenant unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation therefore it cannot be a better Covenant Then he gave no direct answer but now sayes if I mean by Christendome all that are commonly called Christians he grants it this is his concession but with two limitations 1. If the Infants be the one half of them 2. If their unchurching be in respect of visible Church-membership but then he counts it no absurdity there is his Epanorthosis or correction Again he sayes that he knowes not what ordinary means of salvation I conceive they are left without except Baptism which he takes not to be an ordinary means of salvation and therefore thinks it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of Salvation c. yet are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and works of his spirit All this being summed together is in his sense to deny the major and interpretatively averrs That which unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of salvation may be a better Covenant I le trace him in his own foot steps First to gratifie him I mean by Christendome all that are commonly called Christians that is them and their children that hold the fundamentals till they deny them by their life or doctrine and then too so far that after repentance they are not to be baptized again or readmitted by iteration of the seal contrary to Cyprian the Novatians and Donatists with the Councell of Carthage 2. I conceive that Infants that is besides those that dye in their mothers wombes they that expire before and after Baptism before years of discretion with the number of those that lives before the dippers will admit them to their water-ordinance are the one half if not the greater of visible members as by examining of Registers hath been observed Thirdly I grant him that their unchurching is in respect of visible Church membership though not onely so but of invisible Church-membership also interpretatively and consequently for they that are not in covenant and members of the Church-visible have no promise no present hope of Salvation Ephes 2. 12. This he seems to overthrow by these positions following 1. That he knowes not what ordinary means of Salvation Infants out of Covenant are left without except baptism 2. That he takes not Baptism to be an ordinary means of Salvation without faith 3. He thinks it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of Salvation 4. That Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit without ordinary means These are his slight works that he intends to entrench himself in but God willing we shall easily levell them First he sayes that he knowes not what ordinary means of Salvation Infants out of Covenant are left without except Baptism And is not that enough An Infant under the Law left without any ordinary means of salvation save onely circumcision was in a sad condition seeing God said Gen. 17. 14. The uncircumcised Manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people for he hath broken my Covenant and shall we not think
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
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
not Baptism and no Baptism which will appear by the definition of Analoga They have one common name which principally is attributed to one member afterwards by similitude or proportion to others Thus Baptism is principally Sacramentall less principally Typicall washings whether ordinary the Leviticall or extraordinary this under the Cloud and in the red Sea And Analoga are twofold either of inequalitie so entitie or being is by way of perfection ascribed to God afterwards by participation to the creature Or of attribution when it is given to one member properly as health to a body to another Metonymically when it is given to the Urine as the sign to dyet as the cause of health To the later of these our Typicall Baptism may be reduced the other to neither but is Grotius his figment having not the common name And in Isaiah 65. 20. There is need of such an interpretation for as ver 17. The new heavens and new earth and 18. 19. Creation and Jerusalem were analogicall and not proper so the 20. ver is wholly Tropicall and Mysticall There shall be no more thence an Infant of dayes How can this be understood literally did not Infants after as well as under the Captivity make up their weeks of dayes months of weeks c. It must needs relate to something under the Jewish Paedogogie and nothing so probably as that of theirs that nothing was clean till a Sabboth had gone over it and therefore according to divine institution Circumcision was not till the eighth day Mr. T. might have done well to have imparted us either his own or Master Gatakers descant upon these words but because they could devise nothing that like the ears under the Lions skin would not discover the whole Imposture ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem But though he passed by that as a riddle like Davus not Oedipus yet in the words following says Master Gataker the Syntax is familiar I had thought Syntax had been Grammaticall construction according to rule not literall interpretation or univocall not analogicall praedication And this Syntax he sayes is as clear as the day-light or Sun-shine perhaps to an Owle or Bat And what is this Syntax that is so clear The Child or youth that now is shall dye the son of an hundred years that is shall be an hundred years old when he dyeth The Child or youth there is one addition for the Text mentions not youth which is a distinct age from Childhood That now is there is another the Child was not yet it was a praediction and so both an Addition and an untruth shall dye the son of an hundred years there is a third son of by addition put in old by substraction taken away excellent Arithmetick besides here is a new creation of a new generation son of years who ever heard such a Syntax did the son beget the years or the years the son or whether is elder That is shall be an hundred years old when be dyeth here is an exposition of an exposition and a fourth addition be and when being superadded According to which interpretation the words must carry this sense There shall no more Infants dye when they are young nor an old man till he hath filled his dayes for he that now is a child shall not dye till he be an hundred years old I wonder in what age this was performed that no man dyed till he had completed his Century no mortal diseases nor use of Physicians but every man might certainly know the day of his death All experience and history is contrary to this unless that of China that relates many generations before Adam as well as the contents which are justly entitled to the Church of England seeing besides the rise and spring of them every Parliament and Synod with universal acceptation did interpretatively make them so before so many millions to prefer Mr. Gataker one single man and say he understands the text as well or better than they is not onely a disparagement but praesumption I esteem of Mr. Gataker as a reverend man and a prime light of the Church yet dare not elevate him so high in the Pole with Mr. Tombes as to make him infallible nor depresse him so low as Mr. Lilly calculates him pag. 5. 6. of his Merlini Anglici Ephemeris 1654 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Truth must not be pinned upon Mr. Gataker's no nor upon Mr. Tombes sleeve though he speaks magnificently in the language of Nabucadnezzar this text was rightly made by me answerable to Zach. 8. 4. made by him and not by the Holy Ghost nor declared so by any Interpreter before him He mentions neither This is great Babel Let us hear the words Thus saith the Lord of Hosts there shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem every man with his staffin his hand for very age and the streets of the City shall be full of boyes and girls playing in the streets thereof What is this to an Infant of dayes or a child dying an hundred years old When it is apparent from the contents text and Interpreters that this of Zachary is meant of the Jewes return from captivity and more apparent that that of Isay is meant of the state of Christs Kingdom under the Gospel To interpret it otherwise notwithstanding any thing that hath been said hitherto or Mr. Gatake's notes which for brevity sake he will not transcribe bu◠keeps for a reserve ◠believe even yet includes little less than absurdity untruth Blasphemy 1. To apply the 25. v. to the return from captivity is absurd that the wolf and the lamb should feed togither and the lion should eat straw with the bullock and dust should be the serpents neat The Parallel place to which the marginal notes and Expositer◠refer it can be understood of none but Gospel-times for Isai 11. having expressed Christs lineage natures office he declares the peaceable estate of his kingdome 6. 7. The Wolfe also shall dwell with the Lambe and the Leopard shall ly down with the Kid and the Calf and the young Lyon and the fatling together and a little child shall lead them and the Cow and the Bear shall feed their young ones shall ly down together and the Lyon shall eat straw with the Oxe 2. To apply the 19. v. to the return from captivity is an untruth that the voice of weeping should be no more heard in Jerusalem for it was twice destroyed afterwards once by Antiochus then by Vespatian and Titus never rebuilded nor restored yet So that either it must be understood mystically of the conversion and fulness of the Gentiles or literally of the final calling of the Jewes 3. To apply the 17 v. to the return from captivity is blasphemous Behold I create new heavens and new earth and the former shall no more be remembred and come into mind for it crosseth St. Peters interpretation 2 Pet. 3. 13. We according to his promise look for