A Public Dispute Touching Infant Baptism — John Tombes

A Public Dispute Touching Infant Baptism · John Tombes

A relation of the dispute had between Mr. John Tombs B. D. respondent, and John Cragge Mr. A. opponent, in St. Maries Church in Abergevennie, Septemb. 5. 1653. touching Infant-Baptism.

Mr. Cragge having briefly expressed that he was forced to undertake this task, on a sudden, and unprovided, against so experienced a champion; desired, first, if he should fail, the cause might not suffer prejudice in mens opinions for his sake.

2. That libertie might be granted of a premeditate, and treatable dispute hereafter, not doubting that if he should but study the Question so many hours as Mr. Tombs hath done dayes, so many dayes as he hath done weeks, so many weeks as he months, or so many months as he years, the truth was so evident on his side, he would not fear (Maugre all opposition) to make it clear. In the mean time trusting to Gods assistance, (whose cause it was) he would attempt it, beginning with this Enthymema.

Some Infants may not be Baptized, therefore some Infants may be Baptized.

Having repeated, he denyed the consequence.

Which he proved thus, Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true. But these, viz: (some infants may not be Baptised, some infants may be Baptized) are Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter. Therefore they may be both true.

Having repeated the Syllogism, he said there were four terms in it.

He enquired where?

He answered in these words (may be both true) in the Premisses, and (are both true) in the Conclusion.

He returned, that was Mr. Tombs Syllogism, none of his, reciting that distick of Martial.

Quem recitas meus est ô Fidentine logismus, Sed male dum recitas, incipit esse tuus.

Repeating it over again after him, said that,

Not transcribed in the source: illegible: omitted in print, 1 paragraph.

Which he took thus away; That which proves the thing denied, is sufficient; But that Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true, proves the thing denied, that some infants may not be Baptized, some infants may be Baptized; Therefore it is sufficient.

He denyed the Minor, tho it be an Axiom, Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true, yet it was not consequent that these subcontrary contingent propositions (some Infants may not be baptized, some Infants may be baptized) may be both true.

Which was proved thus. That which is affirmed and predicated of the Species, may, and is affirmed of every Individuum, and particular under that Species: But it is affirmed of the Species, that Subcontrary Propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true, therefore it may be affirmed of these particular Propositions (some Infants may not be baptized, some Infants may be baptized) that they may be both true,

He said it was a fallacy, he went about to entrappe him, in confessing that subcontrary Propositions may be both true, where the subject is capable, but here the subject, (to wit infants) are not capable of Baptism.

Then replyes he, they are not Contingent (which is here required) but Necessary Propositions, in materiâ necessaria, if the subject be not capable, but we speak of Contingent Propositions, the Predicate whereof may be affirmed or denied of the subject without contradiction; which while he was framing into a Syllogism,

Mr. T. interrupted him, saying, what would the man say if he could speak?

You love not to hear truth speak, but would strangle it in the birth, like the Egyptian Midwives; but to give you further Satisfaction, I will prove that they are actually both true, especially that some infants may be baptized, for of the other there is no controversie. Which he did thus, To whom belongs the Essence of Baptism, they may be Baptized; But to some infants belongs the Essence of Baptism; therefore some infants may be Baptized.

He denyed the Minor, that the Essence of Baptism did belong to some Infants.

Which was proved thus; To whom belongs the definition of Baptism, to them belongs the Essence; But to some infants belongs the definition of Baptism; Therefore to some infants belongs the Essence of Baptism.

He answered first to the Major, (to whom belongs the definition of Baptism, to them belongs the Essence,) it was idem per idem, proving of the same thing by the same.

To which was replyed, why then sayes Aristotle, that foreign, the definition is a manifestation of the Essence, and Logicians describe a definition, to be explicatio rei Essentiae, the expression of the Essence of a thing, now that which expresses a thing; and which is expressed, are two distinct things. Then he denied the Minor, which was proved thus.

The definition of Baptism, as of all other Relations, is made up of the fundament, correlative, and termini. But all these three fundamentum, correlatum, & terminus, belong to Infants; Therefore the definition of Baptism belongs to Infants.

He denied the Major, that Baptism was a Relation, or was made up of those ingredients.

He replyed, that seemed strange to him, seeing all the Divines, and Logicians that he had read, affirmed Baptism to be a Relation, and it was evident, it could be put in no other Predicament, (as might be proved by Induction, but that the people understood it not) seeing the whole nature of Baptism is foreign in Relation to another.

He said he cared not for authorities, but bid him prove it.

Which he did thus; Every Sacrament is a Relation; But Baptism is a Sacrament; Therefore Baptism is a Relation.

He said he might deny both Propositions, first The Major, for any thing he knew, every Sacrament was not a Relation; And the Minor too, that Baptism was a Sacrament, for the word Sacrament was an invention of man, not grounded upon scripture.

Which both Propositions together were proved thus; That which is an outward, and visible sign, of an inward, and invisible grace, is both a Relation, and a Sacrament; But Baptism is an outward and visible sign, of an inward, and invisible grace; Therefore it is both a Relation, and a Sacrament.

He denyed the Minor, that Baptism was an outward, and visible sign, of an inward, and invisible grace.

He told him, it was St. Austens definition, avouched by learned men in succeeding ages, confirmed, and approved by the Church of England in the old Catechism.

Mr. Tombs said he looked for Artificiall or divine Arguments, not humane Testimonies, at which answer while Mr. C. seemed to be astomished, he took occasion to triumph, contumeliously saying he never heard such an Argument.

To which he replyed, Nor Alexander ever saw such a knot, as the Gordian, which made him cut it, when he could not untie it; you teach me by experience to know that there is no disputing against them that deny all Principles; as where you think the people doe not understand, you make no scruple to deny clear truths in Logick, and Divinitie; Therefore I see I must goe to plain scriptures, that all the people may understand the absurdities. Now that the Definition of Baptism (which was the thing denyed) belongs to Infants, I prove thus.

If God institute Baptism for infants, Christ merited it for them, and they stand need of it, then to infants belongs the Definition of Baptism; But God instituted, Christ meritted, and Infants stand need of Baptism; Therefore to infants belongs the Definition of Baptism.

He denyed the Minor, that God did not institute Baptism for infants, Christ did not merit it for them, nor Infants stand in need of it.

Which he promised to prove in order, First that God did institute Baptism for infants. He that appointed infants Church-members under the Gospell, did institute Baptism for them; But God appointed Infants Church-members under the Gospell; Therefore God did institute Baptism for infants.

He said first the Major might be questioned, because, to be Church-members (whereas he should have said Church-members under the Gospell) and to be Baptized, were not termini convertibiles.

He confessed it, for infants under the Law were Church-members, and yet not Baptized, but Circumcised, and before the Law Church-members, and yet neither Circumcised, nor Baptized; but under the Gospell they were so convertible, that all that were Baptized, were Church-members, and all that were Church-members were to be Baptized, which is that which he affirmed now, and is a truth, a truth so clear, that Mr. Tombs confesses it all along in his Books, and upon that confessed ground, Mr. Baxter goes in many of his Arguments.

He would have denyed it, till a Gentleman told him, that he heard him affirm the same in his Sermon the day before, Then he denyed the minor, that God did institute infants Church-members under the Gospell.

That I'l confirm (sayes he) with a threefold cord, which will not easily be broken, before the Law, under the Law, under the Gospell, which he framed into an Argument thus Those whom God did promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, actually receive into covenant under the Gospell, those God did appoint Church-members under the Gospell; But God did promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, and actually receive Infants into Covenant under the Gospell; Therefore God did appoint Infants Church-members under the Gospell.

He denyed the Minor, That God did not promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, and actually receive infants into covenant under the Gospell.

Which was proved in order, first that God did promise before the Law that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell, thus.

That which God did promise to Abraham, was before the Law; But God did promise to Abraham, that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell; Therefore God did promise before the Law, that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell. The Minor being denyed, he proved out of Gen. 17.7. I will establish my covenant between me, and thee, and thy seed after, thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant. to be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee. Thus framing his Argument; He that makes an everlasting covenant to Abraham, and his seed after him in their generations, promised that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell; but God makes an everlasting Covenant with Abraham, and his seed after him in their generations; Therefore God promised that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell.

He denyed the Major, saying, that everlasting signifyed onelyonly a long time, not that it should be so under the Gospell to the worlds end; and was to be interpreted by the verse following, I will give unto thee the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and yet the Jews are now dispossessed of Canaan.

They are now dispossest, but shall be possessed of it again at their conversion, and so have an everlasting possession, in the type to the end of the world, in the Antitype for ever, but that the covenant that God made with Abraham is to continue to the end of the World appears in that it is a Gospell covenant; That which is a Gospell covenant is to continue to the end of the world; But the covenant that God made with Abraham and his seed to all generations, is a Gospell covenant, Gal. 3.8. and the scripture foreseeing that God would Justifie the heathen, through faith, preached the Gospell before to Abraham, saying, In thee shall nations be blessed; Therefore it is to continue to the end of the world.

Without repeating, he confusedly answer'd thus, that it was an everlasting covenant, and to continue to the end of the world, but not to infants.

He told him first that it was a denying of the Conclusion, then took away his answer thus; If God command infants to stand before him, in covenant, then it is to continue to infants; But God commands infants to stand in covenant before him; Therefore it is to continue to infants. Deut. 29.10, 11. Yee stand this day all of you before the Lord, your God, your Captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your litle ones.

He said that he should have proved that it should continue to infants to the worlds end, for he did not deny but that infants in some sense were in covenant under the Law, but not under the Gospell.

Yes under the Gospell; If Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministrie, and is a Mediator of a better covenant, which is established upon better promisses, then if infants were in covenant under the Law, they are in covenant under the Gospell; But Heb. 8.6. Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministry, was a Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises; Therefore if infants were in covenant under the Law, they are in covenant under the Gospell.

He denyed the consequence of the Major, that tho the covenant of the Gospell was a better covenant than that of the Law, yet infants were not in covenant as well under the Gospell, as under the Law.

Which was thus taken away; That which unchurches the one half of Christendome, and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation, can not be a better covenant; But 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.

Without repeating the Syllogism, or denying either of the Premisses, or formally applying any distinction, he said, the covenant under the Gospell was made onelyonly with the spirituall seed of Abraham.

Which was thus disproved; If the covenant was made in the same manner, and extent, to the Gentiles, as to the Jewes, then under the Gospell it was not onelyonly made to the Spirituall seed; But it was made in the same manner, and extent, to the Gentiles, as it was to the Jewes; Therefore under the Gospell it was not onelyonly made to the Spirituall seed.

He denyed the Minor.

Which was proved by this Enthymema: The partition wall is pulled down, and Jewe and Gentile are all one in Christ-Jesus; Therefore the covenant is made in the same manner, and extent, to the Jew, and Gentile.

He denyed the consequent, that, tho the partition wall was taken down, and both Jew and Gentile are all one in Christ-Jesus, seeing the Gospell was offered to all nations; yet under the Gospell the covenant was onelyonly with the Elect, and believers.

Which was confuted thus; That which is made with the whole visible Church, is not onelyonly made with the Elect, and true believers; But the covenant is made with the whole visible Church; Therefore not onelyonly with the Elect, and true believers.

He denyed the Major.

Which was proved thus; That which is made to the kingdom of God upon earth, is not onelyonly made to the Elect; But that which is made to the whole Church visible is made to the kingdom of God upon Earth; Therefore it was not onelyonly made to the Elect.

He denyed the Major, that, that which was made to the kingdom of God upon earth, is not onelyonly made to the Elect.

Which was proved thus; In the kingdom of God, that is in the Church Militant, there are not onelyonly 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, but few chosen, The kingdom of God is compared to a field, where there are tares, as well as wheat; a fould; where there are goats as well as sheep; to a noble mans house, where there are vessels of dishonour, as well as honour; And if the Church in regard of outward administration of ordinances (which is the Question) were onelyonly 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 invisible, were frivolous, for no man, nor angell, knows who are Elect, nor any but God.

To which issue the first branch of the Argument being brought, Mr. C. referred the judgment of it to the people, And proceeded to the second, that God foretold under the Law, that infants should be Church-members under the Gospell.

Mr. T. perceiving that the people apprehended that he was brought to an apparent absurdity, would have waded into a large discourse to wind himself out.

But Mr. C. told him, that it was his office (being Respondent) to deny or distinguish, but not authoritatively to determine the question, as if he were the Dr. of the chair; And with much ado (the Anabaptistes crying let him have liberty to speak on) brought him to dispute again, and to turn to Esay. 49.22. Whence he framed this Argument. He that foretold that he would lift up his hand to the Gentiles, and set up a standard to the people, and that they should bring their sons in their Armes, and their daughters shall be carryed upon their Shoulders, foretold that infants should be Church-members under the Gospell; But thus saith the Lord God, Behold I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people, and they shall bring thy sons in their Arms, and thy daughters shall be carryed upon their shoulders; Therefore God foretold that infants should be Church-members under the Gospell.

He denyed the Major; And said the meaning was, that the Jewes should bring the Gentiles children.

To which he replyed, God sayes I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and they, that is the Gentiles, shall bring thy sons, and Mr. Tombs says the Jews shall bring thy sons; Then a Gentleman read the words, and said it is the Gentiles shall bring, &c.

Then Mr. T. recollecting himself said, the meaning was, the Gentiles should bring the Jewes children from captivity; And that it did not point at the time of the Gospell.

To which was replyed, the contents of the Chapter sayes that it points at the time of the Gospell; Mr. Tombs sayes it points at the time of the Jewes captivitie, whether shall we believe? and repeated the contents: Christ being sent to the Jewes, complaineth of them to the 5. verse, he is sent to the Gentiles to the 13. verse, Gods love to his Church to the end; then the people laughed, &c.

The pith of which was framed into an argument thus; That which is the judgment of the Church of England ought to be entertained before the groundles assertion of one private man; But that it points at the time of the Gospell is the judgment of the Church of England; Therefore it ought to be entertained before the groundles assertion of one private man.

He denyed that it was the judgment of the Church of England.

Which was thus proved, If the Church of England causes it to be printed, and commands it to be read before the Chapter, then it is the judgment of the Church of England; But the Church of England causes it to be printed, and commands it to be read before the Chapter; Therefore it is the judgment of the Church of England.

Mr. T. said it was not commanded to be printed, and read so before the Chapter, for he knew not what kind of Bible his was.

He told him, it was the same with the great Church Bible, which was not onelyonly authorised with a Proclamation, but an Act almost fifty years agoe, and will Mr. Tombs without giving of a reason condemn a whole nation to have slept in such an errour all that while? Then Mr. Abbets preacher resident there, one who hath been dipped, being in pulpit with Mr. Tombs, stood up and said, the words were, They shall bring thy sons in their Arms; To which Mr. C. replyed, what then? may they not be Gods sons by adoption, and their own by naturall generation?

Mr. Tombs fell upon expounding the Chapter from verse to verse. Mr. C. told him, that they came not to hear him expound, but dispute, and repeating the last Argument, wished him to answer; at which Abbets stood up again, and said the words of the text were, that they, that is, the Gentiles, shall bring thy Children, that is the Jewes. To which Mr. C. replyed, that was an addition to the text, for there is no mention of the Jewes; But grant it were, must it be therefore meant of the Captivitie? the 20. and 21. verses of this Chapter confutes it, intimating that the Jewes after Christs comming shall lose their own naturall, and the Gentiles Children shall be adopted, and engrafted into their place; They, that is the Gentiles converted, shall bring thy sons, thine by a kind of adoption, and spirituall succession, for the Gentiles Children were ingrafted into the stock of the Jewes Children broke off; And this is so clear from the Context (compared with Rom. 11.) That with reason it could not be denyed; But he was to speak to Mr. Tombs who understood the nature of a dispute, and not to him, and if he would take upon him to Moderat, it was fit that he should have another.

Mr. Tombs asked Mr. C. what he understood by standart, what by kings, what by nursing Fathers, &c.

He told him, that it was not his place to dispute Socratically by asking of questions, but to answer ad Appositum. But to give him Satisfaction (which he needed not) by Standart he understood some visible Gospell ordinance, as Baptism; by Kings supream Magistrats, by nursing Fathers, and nursing Mothers, patrons, and protectours of the Gospell.

He said that it was a Metaphoricall speech, and that nothing could be gathered from it.

He replyed, that he would grant him that it was more than a Metaphoricall speech, (for a Metaphor consisted but in one single trope) but it was a continuation of severall tropes, and therefore Allegoricall; yet it does not follow, that nothing could be gathered from it, for then nothing could be gathered from any Parable in the Gospell; Nay nor any part of the New testament; for there is scarce a sentence without some Tropes in it.

Mr. T. said it was fulfilled in Hesters time, which was a nursing Mother to the Jews:

To which was answered; Hester was a Jew, and a friend to the Jews, what is this to the Gentiles bringing Children upon Shoulders? And tho that should be waved, and Hester granted to be a nursing Mother in the type, yet in the Antitype it aymes principally at the times of the Gospell, else grosse absurdities would follow; for what Kings, or Queens in Hesters-time did bow down to the Jews with their face towards the Earth, and lick up the dust of their feet? verse 23. Iles are summoned in the first verse, which must be meant of the time of the Gospell: Christ is promised to be given for a light for the Gentiles, that he may be their Salvation to the end of the earth. 6. Kings shall see, and arise, Princes also shall worships. 7. And the holy Ghost, quotes verbatim, and applyes to the time of the Gospell the 8. verse, and that expressely 2. Cor. 6.2. There is an implyed cutting off to the Jews, 20. An ingrafting in of the Gentiles, the Children of the wild olive into the stock of the naturall olive, 21. And a Bringing of Children to visible ordinances, 22. All which he offered to frame into Arguments.

But Mr. T. prevented it, saying, that though it should be understood of the times of the Gospell, yet by sons in Armes, and daughters upon Shoulders, was meant grown men, for any thing he knew, and men women and of a hundred years of age might be carryed upon armes, and upon shoulders.

Which indeed is the same answer Mr. T. gives in his scepticall exercitation; (like foxes, and badgers being beat out of one hole, hath another to fly unto:) Where (as Mr. Hussey quotes him) he uses the same words, that Mr. Abbets, and he found fault with in Mr. C. Major proposition, for these are his words, It is foretold that Gentiles should bring their Children in their armes, therefore the Prophet foresaw the Baptism of Infants; he might have seen the beam in his own eye, turpe est doctori, &c. But to return to Mr. T. answer.

Which Mr. C. took thus away; Them that they should bring in their bosomes were Infants; But it was foretold that they should bring them in their bosomes; Therefore they were Infants.

He enquired where it did appear that they should bring them in their bosomes.

Out of the text, for the word in the originall (which is translated armes) is bosome, and so the Septuagints read it foreign, intimating that they should bring sucking Children hanging upon their breasts.

Then Mr. Tombs said it was an analogie, and performed when the Gentiles perswaded their Children to embrace Christ.

Well then, it is their Children, not thy children, oportet esse memorem; But not that neither; for that Scripture which in the letter suites with many other Scriptures, but in the pretended analogie with no other, can not be the meaning; But to interpret it literally of bringing Children to Christ in the bosome, suites with many scriptures, and to perswade them to come to Christ, with no scriptures; Therefore it can not be the meaning.

Mr. T. could not name one text of scripture, where to bring in armes, or bosome, was to perswade to come to Christ.

So Mr. C. referred the judgment of it to the people, and named another text, Es. 65.20. There shall be no more thence an Infant of dayes, &c. But the child shall die an hundred year old.

Mr. Tombs bid him read the rest of the words, and the verse following.

He said he had read as much as he intended to rayse his Argument from.

Take notice (sayes he) he will not read that which makes against him.

Not so; for nothing of it makes against me, but that an Argument must be terminus simplex, and homogeneal, and that you know well inough, 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 Jews Infants that might not be Circumcised till a week had passed over them; Therefore Infants new born are capable of the seal; The secund 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:

Mr: T. found fault with that interpretation, shall dye an hundred years old, that is as if an hundred years old.

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 Anabaptistes 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, but 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.

Then Mr. T. said it was not meant of the times of the Gospell.

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.

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.

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, & Text, that this of Zachary is meant of the Jews return from Captivity, & 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 interpret it of the Jews return from Captivitie brings with it absurditie, untruth, blasphemie; Therefore it is not to be admitted.

Mr. Tombs denyed the Minor.

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. Wee 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 brasse; thirdly, of five things that were lost, first the Ark of God, secondly, the Urim & Thummim, thirdty, 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.]

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 authoritie, told him, that it was not fit for a man of his place, and calling, to speak; Yet Mr. 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.

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 onelyonly 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 judgment in this, was but the same with his own University of Oxford, as he knew of late by a sad experiment.

Mr. Tombes Asked what that was?

He told him an explosion, not for disability (for his dispute was plausible inough) but that he would neither be satisfied with D. Salvage his answer, nor the Doctor of the Chaires 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 gun-shot, for he is affraid the great thunderbolt is behind: and so with much adoe, he was brought to dispute again, where Mr. C. falling upon the third branch of his Argument, That God did actually receive Infants to be Church-members under the Gospell, began thus.

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.

Mr. T. denyed the Major.

Which was proved by this Enthymema; The whole includes every part; Infants are a part of Nations; Therfore he that commanded to Baptize all Nations, commanded to Baptize Infants.

He denyed the consequent, though the whole included every part, and Nations were the whole, and Infants were a part of Nations, yet it did not follow that Infants were to be Baptized.

He returned, that, that saying of Aquinas (posito toto generali, pars ejus negari non potest, a generall whole being granted, no part of it can be denyed) was an axiome both in Logick, Philosophie, and Divinity, as Psalm 117.1. Prayse the Lord all yee Nations, is interpreted by another Psalm, Old men, and babes, young men, and maidens, prayse yee the Lord.

Mr. T. Said it was an Axiome that the whole includes every part, where there is no exception, but here is an exception.

He replyed, Saint Ambrose upon the place sayes there is no exception, Qui dixit omnes, nullos exclusit, ne que parvulos, &c. He that said Baptize all Nations, excepted none, no not Infants.

Mr. T. Pished at it, sleighting Ambrose his Authority.

Then said Mr. C. whether we shall obey Ambrose Bishop of Millain with Scripture, or Mr. Tombes Vicar of Lemster against Scripture, judge you. But that there is no exception thus I prove, If Infants be excepted from Baptism, it is either because they are not named in the text, or because we find no instance that any were Baptized, or because they are not capable; But for none of these three; Therefore Infants are not excepted.

Mr. T. Denyed the Major, and said that a fourth reason might be given, because they were not Disciples,

He told him that in this answer he shewed himself to be no good Logician; for it is an Axiome, that in no division, one member can be affirmed of another, because they are opposite, now to be Disciples, and capable of Baptism were not opposite but subordinate; And to be Disciples, if it made them not capable, it was no exception at all, if it made them capable, it was the same with the third, to which Dilemma when he could receive no answer, he demanded where it was required that those that are to be Baptized, must be Disciples?

He said out of the Text, for that which is translated Teach all Nations, is foreign make Disciples of all Nations.

He replyed; at Ross you found fault with me for that translation, asking me, was I wiser than the translators? and now when it seemes to make for you, you urge it. Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo? I confess it is foreign, in the Aorist, ye shall make Disciples, for it must be interpreted by the future, foreign, Baptizing, or by Baptizing in the present tense; as if Discipling were the end, and Baptizing the means, and required no qualification before (as learned men with great probability press) but I will not insist upon that now, But that which you denyed, I prove, that Infants may be Disciples, from [that place Rom. 15.10. compared with the 5. verse, for so Mr. C. said, mistaking it for] Acts 15.10.

At which Mr. Tombes insulted, saying he was a good text-man.

He replyed, he was in hast, and did not think of this before, but that his answer did drive him to it, and he in his elaborate books did oftentimes quote one place for another, then how much more might he, that was extemporall, it had been enough to have said, as our Saviour to the Tempter, its written: but to leave these catches, and come to the proof. They upon whom the Pharasies would have layd the yoak, were Disciples, verse 10. Why tempt ye God, to put a yoak upon the neck of the Disciples; But many of them were Infants; Therefore Infants are Disciples.

He denyed the Minor, that many of them were not Infants.

Which was proved thus; The yoak was Circumcision verse 5. the Pharasies saying, that it was needfull to Circumcise them; But they upon whom the yoak was to be imposed by Circumcision, were only Infants amongst the Jews, and Infants together with Parents amongst the Gentiles; Therefore many of them were Infants.

He denyed the Major, and said the yoak was not Circumcision.

He replyed it was apparent, by comparing the 5. and 10. with the foregoing verses. 1. verse Certain men came down from Judea, and taught the brethren, except ye be Circumcised, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved; where observe that Circumcision is the subject of the Question. In the 2. verse they determined that Paul, and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles, and Elders, about this Question, to wit Circumcision. In the 5. certain of the Sect of the Pharasies said, that it was needfull to circumcise them. In the 6. the Apostles came together to consider of the matter, that is Circumcision, and when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up in the 7. and determined the Question in the tenth verse, why tempt ye God to put a yoak upon the neck of the Disciples?

Mr. T. Said, that Circumcision could not be the yoak, that neither they nor their fathers could bear.

He returned, that it was a bloody, and a heavy yoak, therefore the Israelites had a dispensation for 40. years in the wilderness; Moses neglected the Circumcision of his child probably for this cause; and his wife (when the Child was Circumcised) called him a bloody husband. The Sichemites were slain, as unable to defend themselves, while they were sore of the wound of Circumcision.

Mr. T. Said, that the Doctrine of Moses was the yoak of which Infants were not capable.

He replyed; that Circumcision was principally meant, and the doctrine of Moses onelyonly as an Appendix of it, and children were as capable of the doctrine then, as they were in Abraham, and Moses his time, when all in the moment of Circumcision were tyed to the observation of the doctrine, tho they of ripe years (to use Vossius his distinction) were taught the doctrine antecedenter, before Circumcision, infants of eight days consequenter, after Circumcision, when age made them capable; I know (sayes God) Abraham will teach his Children; So it is apparent all those upon whom Circumcision with the doctrine of Moses was to be imposed, were called Disciples; But some of these were Infants, for onelyonly Infants were Circumcised among the Jews, and Infants with the Parents among the Gentils; therefore some Infants are Disciples.

Mr. T.

Without any distinct answer would have broke through the pales to rove abroad again.

But he pressed him to keep within the lists, urging this Argument. They to whom is the promise, they may be Baptized, its the Apostles own inference, Acts 2.28. Be Baptized, for the promise is to you; But to Infants of believing parents is the promise, the promise is to you, and your Children; therefore Infants may be Baptized.

He denyed the Minor, that to Infants of believing parents is the promise.

He told him, it was the words of the text, The promise is to you, and your Children.

Then Mr. T. Said they were not believers yet.

Mr. C. Replyed, they were believers in fieri, tho perhaps not in facto.

That's Latine (sayes Mr. T.) what do you understand by it?

He said, I mean this, they were believers by outward assent, and disposition, sufficient to make them members visible; but perhaps not believers by inward assent, and habit, to justify them. For I know you will not say that none are to be Baptized but they that have a saving faith, which none but God is able to discern. Ministers must act according to rule, which in adultis, is outward profession, or a willingness to receive the Ordinance, and that they were thus qualified (which is sufficient) it is apparent.

Mr. T. Denyed that they were sufficiently qualified.

Which was proved thus; They whom the Apostle commanded to be Baptized, were sufficiently qualified; But the Apostle commanded them to be Baptized; Therefore they were sufficiently qualified.

Then Mr. T. Without repeating the Syllogism, or applying any distinction, inquired where the Apostle commanded them to be Baptized.

He told him verse 38. foreign, be Baptized every one of your.

Yes (sayes Mr. T.) Upon condition of Repentance, repent and be Baptized.

That is a condition of your own making, and an adding to the Word of God, for where dos the Scripture, either expresly, or implyedly say, that Repentance is a condition of Baptism? if it be meant of compleat repentance, true it is, 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, it is not so much as hinted at. And if you mean incompleat repentance (which is Indeed all that is required) they had that already, for they were pricked in conscience, saying, Men, and brethren what shall we do?

Mr. T. Said that was not all that was required, nor was it a sufficient qualification for Baptism.

Against which answer was concluded thus; That upon which the Apostles Baptized three thousand the same day, was a sufficient qualification; But the Apostles upon that Baptized 3000. the same day; Therefore it was a sufficient qualification.

He denyed the Minor, and gave his reason from the 40. and 41. verses, And with many other words did he testify, and exhort, saying, Save your selves from this untoward generation, then they that gladly received the word were Baptized,

It was replyed, that this was but a recapitulation, or reciting of the heads of Peters Sermon that he preached to them, before they were pricked in conscience, or were exhorted to be baptized, and no new act; which was a thing usual in Scripture, as Gen. 1. God having expressed the creation of Man, and Gods blessing of him, and all creatures to him, by a foreign recites the manner of his creation in the second Chapter. But howsoever it made nothing against him, for whether it be taken thetically without any condition, or hypothetically upon condition of repentance, the Children were to be baptized together with the Parents, the promise is to you and your Children, and that was all that he contended for; from whence ariseth this Argument, To whom the promise of Grace belongs, to them Baptism belongs also; But the promise of Grace belongs to Believers and their Children; Therefore Baptism belongs to both.

Mr. T. said, the Promise of Grace belonged to Believers, and their Children, when their Children actually believed, and not before.

He replyed, there were two Arguments in the text to overthrow that: The first might be drawn from the Indicative predication in the present tense, the Promise is to you, and your Children, is, for the present, as well to your Children, as to you. The second, from the opposition betwixt you and your Children, and them that are afar off. They, and their Children, which are, foreign, near (as the Greek Scholiast, and the Syrian Interpreter saies) are opposed to them that are foreign, afar off. The Jews were near, and in Covenant, for to them is the promise in the present tense, but the Gentiles were afar off, Rom. 2.15. Ye who sometimes were afar off, are made nigh by the Blood of Christ, therefore it is expressed in the future tense, as many as God shall call; So that to the Jews being called, their Children were in Covenant with them; when the Gentiles shall be called, their Children shall be in Covenant with them.

Mr. T. said, he granted that Children were in Covenant, and might be baptized

Well then observe, good People, the Dispute is at an end, he grants that Children are in Covenant, and may be baptized.

Yes, but by those Children are not meant Infants, but Grown Men.

He replyed, there are many circumstances in the text overthrows that; first, the word is foreign, which comes from foreign, to bring forth, given sometimes to Children in the womb, for the most part to them that are newly born, or young.

Mr. T. said, it was also given to Men of ripe age.

Yes sometimes, by a figurative speech, (as that of Julius Caesar to Brutus in Plutarch) foreign, and thou my Child. And well might he call him his Child, for he had adopted him the night before; but properly it signifies a young Child, and so it ought to be taken here, unless some convincing reason can be given to the contrary, according to that rule, Omne analogum per se positum, stat pro famosiore significato. Mr. T. gave no answer, but with a jeering Eccho repeated the last words, pro famosiore significato.

The second circumstance in the text, is the substantive verb foreign, is, the promise is to you, and your Children, not is to you, and shall be to your Children; now what Children had they at this present, but young Children? unless Mr. T. will imagine that they were all Old Men and Women that were present, and their Younger Men and Women were absent.

The third circumstance in the text is the finis cui, the end to whom the promise is, to you, and your Children; the Jews Children under the Law were in Covenant with their Parents, the Charter is confirm'd under the Gospel to them and their Children. The Jews when they crucified Christ, called for a Curse upon themselves, and upon their Children, here the Apostle gives them a Remedy as large as the Disease, the promise (that is, of Freedome from the curse) is to you and your Children.

Mr. T. still kept his Conclusion in despight of the Premisses, that it was to their Children when they actually believed, and not before.

Yes, and before they actually believe, which I prove thus: The blessing is as large as the curse; But the curse extended even to children, before they could actually believe (his blood be upon us and upon our children) Therefore the blessing.

Mr. T. answered to the Major thus: If by blessing was meant the inward and spiritual part of the Covenant, it might be true; but that was nothing to the present purpose, seeing it was not known to us: But if the outward, and visible part, he denied that Infants were capable of the blessing, as well as liable to the curse.

Which distinction was took away thus: They that are holy with a Covenant-holiness are capable of the outward and visible part; But Infants of Believers are holy with a Covenant-holiness; Therefore they are capable of the outward and visible part.

Mr. T. denied the Minor, and said that Covenant-holiness was gibberidge, which they that spoke did not understand themselves.

Mr. C. replyed, it was the language of learned men of all ages, amongst whom were Vossius, Bullinger, and Hugo Grotius; and that Children of Believing Parents were holy before Baptism, and that Baptism did not make, but declare them to be Christians.

Then cryed out a Cobler, [I. E.] (that hath been dipped) this is Blasphemy.

Well, you discover of what spirit you are, and your ignorance; Are not these the words of the learned assembly of Divines in the Directory confirmed by Ordinance of Parliament? That Infants are Christians, and federally holy before Baptism, and therefore are they Baptized [Pag 12.] And that Infants of Believing Parents are thus holy, with a federall, or Covenant-holiness, I thus prove from, 1 Cor. 7.14. Els were your Children unclean, but now they are holy.

That sayes Mr. T. Is meant of Matrimoniall holynes, or a lawfull use of the Marriage-bed, that they are no Bastards.

That Answer I thus infringe. That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense, and not so much as once for Matrimoniall holiness, cannot be so meant here; But it is taken in Scripture almost six hundred times in a distinct sense, and not once for Matrimoniall holyness; Therefore it cannot be so meant here.

That Argument (sayes Mr T.) I will retort upon you, That which in Scripture is taken six hundred times in a distinct sense, and never Once for Covenant-holiness cannot be meant here; But it is taken six hundred times in a distinct sense, and never once for Covenant holiness; Therfore it cannot be meant here.

To which was replyed, this is to invert the order of the dispute, you are to answer, and not to oppose.

I may oppose by retorting of an Argument, and I will answer anon.

Well, to satisfie you, I deny your Minor, for its taken oft in Scripture for Covenant-holiness.

Where?

The proof lyes upon you, that it is not, yet Ile give give you one instance, or two, Rom. 11.16. if the first fruits be holy, the Lump is also holy, and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

That is not meant of a Covenant-holyness.

Yes, its as cleer as the light, and so you your self interpreted it at Ross, as there are hundreds that will witness, which was upon this occasion. I pressed that if the immediat parents were holy, the children were holy with a Covenant-holiness; you denyed the inference, and said the meaning of it was, that Abraham the father of the faithfull was the first fruits, and root that was holy, and therefore his posterity was holy, and in covenant [And in this exposition, as he agreed with truth, so with Beza, who sayes that children are holy, that is comprehended in covenant from the wombe, and with Bowles who saith, that they are holy with outward holiness, by which they are judged to be in covenant]

But to return from whence, by your retortion, we have digressed. I am to prove that holyness is never taken in Scripture for Matrimoniall cleanness in opposition to Illegitimation. Not in that place Ezra 9.2. the holy seed have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands; which is either your only, or principall hold, (as far as I can gather out of your books) therefore in no place.

He denyed the Antecedent.

Which was proved thus. If it be meant of Matrimoniall cleanness, then this must be the meaning of the words; The holy seed, that is the lawfully begotten Jews, have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands, that is the bastards of those lands; But that cannot be the meaning, for happily there were some Bastards among the Jewes, and in that sense not holy, and no Bastards among the Nations, but all, or the most Legitimate, and therefore in that sense not unholy; Therefore it is not meant of Matrimoniall holiness.

He denyed the Major, affirming that both Jews, and Nations, were holy before their mixture, but then, both they, and their Children became unclean, because God had forbidden them to marry with the Nations.

To which was answered, they that are Saints are not unholy; But some Saints have been begot by this mixture, or unlawfull bed, as Jepthah, who Hebr. 11. Is said to be justified by faith; Therefore they are not unholy.

He denyed the Major, saying, they may be unholy by their Naturall Generation, and first birth, and yet holy by Regeneration, and new birth.

This strikes not home; Moses had children by his Ethiopian woman, but they were not illegitimate; therefore those that were begot by mixture with the Nations were not Illegitimate.

Mr. T. Said, that was before the Law was given.

Well, that Answer will do you little service; after the Law was given, Salomon had children by Rahab, who was a Cananitish, and Boaz by Ruth, who was a Moabitish woman; and yet they were not Illegitimate, or unholy, as you would have it.

They became Proselites, and received the Religion of the Jews.

Well then, while they were not of the Jews Religion, tho no Bastards, they were unholy, when they embraced the Jews Religion, (by your own confession) they became holy; what is this but a Covenant-holyness which you have opposed all this while, and now grant it?

Mr. T. Used many words to clear himself, but with little satisfaction to the greatest part of the hearers, and still denied that children were holy, and in covenant.

Which was further proved thus, They that Christ took up in his arms, blessed, said, the Kingdom of God belonged unto them, pronounced a curse upon those that despised, and would not receive, are holy with a Covenant-holyness; But Christ took up little children into his arms, blessed them, sayd, 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.

Mr. Tombes began to be netled, as if something in this Argument galled him, saying it was a fallacie, and that he went about to entrap him by sophistrie.

What fallacie?

A heaping of many things together that belong to severall matters.

I confess they were spoken upon severall occasions, but they all concenter in my Conclusion, that children are holy, and in covenant; I am in hast, and named them all together, but if you will have patience, Ile prosecute them severally.

I am willing to continue till midnight, but I like not this kind of arguing.

You like it not, because it does jugulum petere, cut the throat of your tenet.

No not so much as touch the skin of it, sayes he.

Well I beseech you in the spirit of meekness to answer.

It is a fallacie of heaping many particulars together.

I confess there is a fallacie they call foreign.

Take notice, he confesses it is a fallacie.

No such thing, for foreign is an asking of many Questions, which is your usuall fallacie, Socratically to ask, when you should solidly answer, but in my Syllogism there is not so much as one Question.

It is a Copulative proposition sayes Mr. Tombes, and if one member of it be false, the whole is false.

It is not an explicit Copulative proposition (sayes Mr. C.) neither is any member of it false, (for every branch of it is Scripture,) Instance in any of the particulars that you think m…kes the least for me, and Ile begin with that; then he mentioned Matth. 18.2. Which words being read, from thence he raysed this Argument. 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.

Those little Children were not Infants.

They are called foreign of foreign, because they could scarce speak.

What are these called foreign?

If not here, elsewhere, and of other Evangelists, and here they are called foreign, by the diminutive, which the great Master of the Greek Hippocrates interprets, to signifie a Child under seven years of age, and therefore not capable of actuall faith, when the Apostles themselves were yet ignorant about fundamentalls.

They were converted verse 3. Except ye be converted, and become as little Children, &c.

The meaning is not that the little Children are converted, 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.

O how unhappy are the people that are seduced with these toyes, are you not ashamed?

I see you have learned of that man in Lucian to cry out foreign, and to vilifie that Argument you cannot answer, and besides that, I see nothing that is shame-worthy.

He hath answered nothing at all (sayes one under the Pulpit) but shifts and denyes all.

Thou art an impudent, brazen-faced fellow, whosoever thou art, I have answered all, confuted all my adversaries Books, and amongst them one of my greatest Antagonists, I have turned Mr. Richard Baxter the most of his Arguments against himself.

Sir, let that worthy man alone who is absent, you are now to answer me.

Here is nothing to answer, is it not in the sixt verse, Who so shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me? were they not believers?

Yes, the Disciples were believers, which are here meant, and not the children; which the Grammaticall construction will tell you, for it is in the masculin gender, foreign, one of these little ones, meaning foreign disciple, not in the Neuter Gender to answer to foreign, little child; so that my Argument remains unanswered.

I am weary of this Pedantrie, and looking upon his watch, said, I promised but one houre, and its above foure houres; with that he clapped his Book together. [T. J.] Good Mr. Tombes (says an Anabaptist) continue a little longer for satisfaction of the people; he gave no answer, but put on his hat.

Well, Sir, I will not press you any further now, I should have urged John 3.5. Rom. 11. and other places, to prove Infants Church-membership, and have come to the second and third branches of mine Argument, that Christ merited it for them, and Infants stand in need of Baptism; but those I must leave to another opportunitie; Therefore I desire that we may have a set day about a Month hence, seeing I was hurryed to this extemporall discourse through importunitie.

No, I will have no more dealing with you, unless it be by writing, that what both of us shall set down, may be read in the publick Congregation.

A Public Dispute Touching Infant Baptism, Part 2

p. 15A relation of the dispute had between Mr. John Tombs B. D. respondent, and John Cragge Mr. A. opponent, in St. Maries Church in Abergevennie, Septemb. 5. 1653. touching Infant-Baptism.

A relation of the dispute had between Mr. John Tombs B. D. respondent, and John Cragge Mr. A. opponent, in St. Maries Church in Abergevennie, Septemb. 5. 1653. touching Infant-Baptism.