Antipædobaptism, or no plain nor obscure scripture-proof of infants baptism, or church-membership, being the first part of the full review of the dispute about infant-baptism: containing an ample disquisition of the ingrassing, Rom. II. 17. the promise, Acts 2. 39. the holinesse of children, I Cor. 7.14. Whereby the expositions of those texts, and arguings thence for infant-baptism by Mr. Stephen Marshall, Mr. John Geere, Mr. Richard Baxter, Mr. Thomas Cobbet, Mr. Thomas Blake, Mr. Josiah Church; and the arguments of Mr. Nathaniel Stephens for the convertiblity of a word of promise and command, are fully refuted. By John Tombes, B.D.

SECT. XXX.

Mr. Bs. seventh argument from the preferring a proper and usual sense before an abusive, is answered.

MR. B. addes. My seventh argument is this: when the pro∣per sense of a word may be taken, and also that sense wherein it is used many hundred times by the Holy-Ghost, and this without any palpable intonvenience; then it is sinfull to reject that sense and prefer an abusive Catachrestical sense, and which is disagreeing from all other Scripture-use of the word: But here the proper sense of the word [sanctifyed] may be taken, wherein Scripture useth it many hundredtimes, and that without any palpable (yea the least) inconvenience; Therfore it is sinful to prefer before it an abusive sense, wherein Scripture never useth the word; (by his own confession) The Major was not denyed; the Minor was denyed (that the proper u∣sual sense may be here taken without inconvenience) 1. I desired him to shew any inconvenience in it. And you shall anon here all that he hath shewed then or since.

Answ. 1. Mr. B. saies that I confess the word [sanctifyed] is taken here in an abusive sense, wherein the Scripture never useth the word; in which he misrepresents my words. I say the word is ta∣ken in this place in the usual sense in which it is taken in Scripture, for a person sanctified, as 1 Cor. 1. 2. and 6. 11. &c. but not without a catachresis, that is abuse or impropriety of speech, as when it is said he that he areth my word is my Father and Mother, the word is taken in the usual sense, yet with some abuse or impropriety of speech, is to me as if he were my Father and Mother, which Mr. B. absurd∣ly calls an abusive sense, whereas it is only a turning of the word from its simple sense according to its full latitude by applying it to a person in some respect only, or with some diminution, which is common with all authors.

2. Mr. B. supposeth his sense to be used many hundred times in Scripture. But as I have said before, I do not conceive the word [sanctifyed] is used any where for Mr. Bs. sort of remote sanctifying to him who is separated to God, and will (or is bound by his professi∣on to) use it for it God, no not 1 Tim. 4. 5.

3. Hovv usual it is to interpret words as I do, this hath been shewed above.

4. I have shewed before it is no sin to use a word in a sense to which the scope, coherence, parallel place, &c. lead, though there be no such palpable inconvenience as Mr. B. speaks of to understand it in the usual sense, as 1 Cor: 11. 10. Mat. 18. 17. &c.

5. Nevertheless in this place Mr. Bs. sense cannot hold by reason of sundry inconveniencies, as namely, that it is an uncouth interpre∣tation, that in reason it is very impertinent to tell them, the believer may live with the unbeliever in mariage use, for the unbeliever is san∣ctifyed to him who is separated to God, and will (or is bound by his profession to) use all for God, which hath no more ground to justify the living together of maried, then of unmaried persons; yea that reason must rest on this or the like proposition, that a believer may lawfuly en∣joy that which he will or is bound by his prosession to use for God, and it is sanctifyed to him, and so any thing that is anothers, goods, wife, &c. are sanctifyed to a believerwho is separate to God and will or is bound by his profession to use all for God, which willbring in that which M. B. so much inveighs against, community of goods, wives, &c. If it be said it supposeth the things sanctifyed to be lawful, or his own; I re∣ply, 1. Mr. B. doth not put that in his description of his remote san∣ctification, he would have all things simply to be pure to the pure Tit. 1. 15. and 2. Nor by either Mr. Bs. or Mr. Ms. interpretation of the sanctifying 1 Cor. 7. 14. is it necessary to be inserted, sith the reason of the sanctifying is not by them drawen from the conjugal relation, but from the faith of the one party, as is shewed before, Sect. 22. 23. &c. 3. But let the proposition be, All that is lawfull or his own is sancti∣fied to a believer, yet the doubt of the Corinthians would not be re∣moved by the proposition so limitted, sith the doubt was whe∣ther the un believing husband were lawful and to be owned any long∣er as a yoke-fellow. Besides that proposition is not true except the be∣liever be such really before God; For he only useth all for God, and so hath all sanctifyed to him; no hypocrite doth use all for God, but for himself, though he be a professed believer, and then the Apostles rea∣sonexpounded in Mr. Bs. sense would not justify such persons living toge∣ther, but rather conclude a necessity of their desertion of the unbelieving yokefelow: yea sith a true real believer someimes doth use things against God, lives like an unbeliever in sinfull practices and a profane course, so as to incur excommunication, then his unbelieving wife should be divorced, he should put her away, sith she is not sanctifyed to him

in this state; the like may be said if he doubt whether he be a real believer. Again, sith the using all for God is a future contingent, Paul had resol∣ved them of the lawfulness of continuing together at present from a fu∣ture contingent, which might be or not be, which Chamier ubi suprà counted justly absurd, such a reason being manifestly unsatisfactory. All these and more in conveniences there are which at the time of the dispute and after conference I could not discern, but some I did then discern, and some I put in my Antidote page 15. to which the an∣swer of Mr. B. is considered in its place: in the mean time I shall pursue him step by step.

2. Saith he,

I proved the negative thus. If the Scripture say expressely, that to the pure all things are pure and sanctified (and here be nothi n against that sense) then it being a certain truth, we may so understand it here. But the Scripture saith expressely, that to the pure all things are pure and sanctified (in the proper sense) There∣fore it being a certain truth (and here is nothing against that sense) we may so take it here.

To which I answer, by denying both the Consequence of the Major and the Minor. The Consequence, because it rests on this proposirion, that a place of Scripture is to be expounded in that sense which hath a certain truth, and hath nothing there against it. For there is more required, to wit, the fitness of it to the scope, coherence, &c. But the Minor I also deny, and besides what is already said against Mr. Bs. sense, and what is to come after, for the present I adde, That 1 Cor. 7. 14. doth not ap∣pear parallel to Tit 1. 15. because there the whole strength of the pro∣position is in the term [pure] and therefore there mentioned with Em∣phasis, but 1 Cor. 7. 14. the term [believer] that might answer to it is omitted, and the object of the sanctification is expressed by [hus∣band and wife] leaving out [believer] which shewes the reason of the sanctification to be not from the faith of the believer, but the conjugal relation.

But Mr. B. taking all occasions to render me as bad as he can, pro∣ceeds in his course thus.

What Mr. T. said to this, it is a shame to hear from the mouth of a Christian: but you may see part of it (if it be worth the seeing) afterwards. In brief he affirmed and long contested, that all things are sanctified to believers onely while they are acting faith; yea, only while they are actually praying (in the sense of that text) And so brings in an old condemned Heresie (so cal∣led by the Fathers) that nothing is pure to us longer than we are pray∣ing. Then his dispute was unsanctified, and so is his preaching, though

it be against infant-baptism, and though he pray before and after; yea then his very meat and drink is unsanctifyed (which Paul said were sanctified by the word and prayer) and then what good will prayer do as to the sanctifying of any thing, when it sanctifieth no longer than we are praying? would any man believe that such doctrine should fall from Mr. T. a man of learning and supposed judiciousness? If he had not long insisted on it, and that before about 30. Ministers and Scholars and some thousands of people, I should not expect that one should believe me. And is it any wonder if he that will or dare plead thus, dare also plead against infant-baptism? yea, when I ar∣gued against him thus [if it be onely in the very exercise of faith and prayer that things are pure, then sleep is not pure or sanctified to you; (for you do not exercise faith and prayer in your sleep) but sleep is sanctffied: therefore it is not onely in the very exercise of faith and prayer.] Here Mr. T. denied that sleep is sanctified; (would any man believe it?) which I proved thus: If all things are pure to the pure, then their sleep is: But the text saith, All things are pure to the pure, Tit. 1. 15. Therefore their sleep is pure to them. Here Mr. T. an∣swered, that by all things were meant some things. And thus you see, what grounds the most learned go on against our baptism; which would make a tender heart even tremble.

Answ. The grounds we go on against infant-baptism are not any which Mr. B. here mentions, but that it is not according to Christs institution Mat. 28. 19. or the Apostles practice; and therefore will∣worship, which Mr. B. did not then hold forth for them to see; nor is it true that by that he there speaks or writes his Hearers or Readers did see what grounds the most learned go on against his baptism. When I read Mr. Bs. book I wondred as much at Mr. B. as he did at me, that he should so zealously maintain infant-sprinkling upon such gross fooleries as he doth, that infants of believers are disciples, Mat. 28. 19. disciples in a meer relation without any learning, disciples re∣motely by their parents faith, that our infants are visible Church-mem∣bers from a supposed ordinance unrepealed, but no where shewed ex∣cept in the Church-membership of the Jews, which with the rites of that Church is manifestly taken away by dissolving that policy and putting up another frame in a far different way, besides most gross per∣vertings of texts, such as I may well say would make a tender heart e∣ven tremble to repeat. As for the present passage of his, me thinks a tender heart would have trembled thus to repeat in print to the world his brothers words, taking him at the worst, without ever asking of him

his meaning, who did so often desire the arguments in writing, that he might mend his answers in dispute, when he lived but 2 miles from him. But I am so inured to his deforming paintings of me, that I make account of it as a good hour in which I meet not with some of his stuff while I examine this writing. It was my folly I confess, and it proves my disadvantage that I entered the dispute without agreement about rules, notaries, &c. trusting to Mr. Bs. imagined candor, and expecting rather a friendly conference than such a pitcht dispute: so that I cannot convince Mr. B. of his fictions as I might have done. But whereas Mr. B. makes me say that all things are sanctified to be∣lievers while they are acting faith, yea while they are actually praying, & that onely in the very exercise of faith & prayer things are pure, some notes that I got set down my words [when they pray, not without actu∣al praying, by vertue of the exercise of faith] Mr. B. himself page 208. [by the present act of faith and prayer] not as here [while they are actually praying, only in the very exercise of faith and prayer] By my expressions what ever they were my meaning was to exclude onely from sanctifying, either professed faith without reality, or a habit of faith real without acting, and an acting of faith interrupted by falling into sin, remisseness, and partial back sliding from that Christian course: but never in the sense Mr. B. interprets me, as if I held a thing sancti∣fied onely while, that is during the coexistence of prayer, and the use of the thing: which were indeed to speak things inconsistent, the use of the thing being not till the prayer be ended. My tenet rightly un∣derstood neither brings in the heresie of the Euchites, which as August. tom. 7. de haeresibus ad Quodvult Deum haeres. 57. was, that they shousd onely pray, nor denies sleep to be sanctified when the person keeps a holy course of walking with God in prayer when he is waking. It is true, I said by all things Tit. 1. 15. were not meant all things simply, for then sins should be said to be pure, and therefore the speech Tit. 1. 15. must be understood as 1 Cor. 6. 12. with limitation, which is in effect to say some things are pure; But I answered this in my Praecursor in answering the charge of gross a bsurdities on me in the dispute at Bewdley. I may say he that dares thus misrepresent ano∣thers words for his advantage, dares take hold on any vain pretence to uphold the tottering credit of his infant-springling.