baptizing of persons but that it may appeare that onely such were not then in the assembly albeit the growne persons were those to whom especially such speeches were directed compare this with that of Austin in his 4. Serm. in octav Paschae adneophytos where hee saith To day are celebrated the octaves of Infants their heads are uncovered in token of libertie c. Those children Infants little ones sucklings hanging on their mothers breasts and ignorant of what grace is bestowed as you may perceive because they are called Infants even they also also have their octaves to day And these old men young men striplings all are also Infants By this testimony we may perceive a larger interpretation of the word Neophytos scil any one newly planted into the Church whether Infant youth or other any one who was as new borne Sacramentally in baptisme of what age soever And that at the solemnitie of Easter * Infants sucklings were baptized as well as elder ones even before that change of the limitatiō of Baptism to Easter and and Pentecost Of which Rupertus and Boemius speake baptisme of Infants was not brought in for mortalities sake upon the change of the old use of baptisme at Easter and Pentecost but was in use while yet those limited times stood and long before this corrupt use of limiting the time of baptisme was in force of which more anon Yet also this I deny not but that corrupt addition to Paedobaptisme being in use in those times of asking questions to the child by the sureties c. this answer might suffice that even Infants too were in that number of young plants mentioned which did answer as is there said by their sureties Austin is againe quoted for proofe of the 7th Proposition de baptismo contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 23. de Genesi ad literam lib. 10. cap. 23. now then let us examine what Austine saith there and how pertinent a proofe it is of the proposition hee calleth it there saith the Treatise a Church custome and thence concludes by the witnesse that Paededobaptisme is an ordinance of man brought into the Church by Teachers since the Apostles time and instituted by councells c. but let us heare Austin speake for himselfe at the first hand and not take a report of his words at second hand lest it prove a slander thus he speaketh in the former place the which the whole Church holdeth as delivered to it that even little Infants are baptized which truely yet cannot beleeve with the heart unto righteousnesse nor confesse with the mouth unto salvation as the Thiefe he meanes the converted Thiefe c. and yet no Christian hath affirmed that they are baptized in vaine and immediatly Chap. 24. addeth And if any seeke divine authoritie in this matter scil of Infants baptisme although that which the whole Church holdeth neither was instituted by councells but alwayes retained wee assuredly beleeve that it was not delivered but by Apostolicall authoritie yet wee may truely conjecture opposing this to all false and uncertaine conjectures of what authoritie or force the Sacrament of Infants baptisme is from circumcision c. where first in the very place quoted hee saith not that it was a tradition of the Church onely or from the Church but was delivered to the Church and least any should imagine that this was delivered to the Church by any corrupt teachers since the Apostles times Austin in the next Chapter within five or six lines of that in the 23. Chapter mentioned giveth his arguments to prove that it could not bee delivered to the Church but by Apostolicall authoritie first in that it was never instituted by any councells secondly because it was ever held by the Churches scil since there was any Church planted by the Apostles and I thinke his arguments are weightie other things which were of such note as this of Paedobaptisme was if innovations either they may bee proved that they came in by such or such councells or authors or it may be proved that there was never any such thing in use before such or such a time which in this case will be hard for any to undertake to make the same good by convincing testimonies or arguments But to returne to our Authors they bring in this testimony to prove that baptisme of Infants was instituted by councells * The first witnesse saith flatly it was not instituted by Councells what forgery is this they make him their witnesse to prove it to bee an ordinance of man the witnesse proveth that it 's of divine authoritie What notable jugling is this Will they never leave this trade Let us examine the other place where Austin saith that it is a Church custome if our Authors speake truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth of the place quoted the words there are as followeth the custome of our mother the Church in baptizing Infants is not to bee despised nor by any meanes is the same to be thought superfluous Yery good then will they say this place is full for us Nay stay Sirs be not too hasty to interrupt the witnesse whilst hee is speaking let him speake all hee hath here to say scil nor were it at all to bee beleeved unlesse it were an Apostolicall tradition c. So you heare Sirs hee tells you it 's such a Church custome as withall it is an Apostolicall tradition and that in the other place quoted is of Divine authority hee makes account which is delivered to the Church by the Apostles As indeed it is unlesse that any thinke that the Apostles in their Apostolicall ministry erred and delivered that to the Church as the mind meaning and intent of Christ which hee never meant And Austin hath the very same words as here in his third Epistle ad Yolusiam Nay lest there should bee any stick in the words traditum ab Apostolis and Apostolicall tradition hee peremptorily affirmeth speaking of the Churches authority in this case of Paedobaptisme lib. 1. de peccat merit remiss cap. 16 proculdubio per Dominum Apostolos traditum that without all question it was delivered by the Lord and his Apostles But our Authors here will not leave Austin thus but they will make him speake for them ere they have done therefore hee is quoted againe in the 28th Epistle to Jerom to confirme their 7th Proposition Content wee will heare any thing hee can say What saith Austin there Nay pag. 32. our Authors are silent and onely quote the place not the words and leave us to finde the sense out as Nebuchanezzar did his dreame and them to interpret it But let mee assure them Austin doth rather confirme the contrary in that Epistle then otherwise clearing both the spirituall ends of Christian parents in hastning with their children to Baptisme and ratifying Cyprians judgement touching the case of Paedobaptisme that hee therein did not frame some new decree but held the most firme beleefe
alone convey sinne to the Infant It beleeveth then and it's baptisme is valid and it 's joyned to the faithfull formerly baptized This the authoritie of the Church our mother holdeth This doth the sure Canon or rule of truth obtaine Thus far forth then it was looked at as a doctrine not onely which the Church had in it but which the Scripture the rule of truth contained in it that in the businesse of Baptisme at least the faith of such as conveyed sinne to the child even of the parents was in stead of its owne personall faith so farre as to make its baptisme valid and beneficiall to it SECT IIII. Arnobius THe next witnesse is Arnobius upon the Psalmes which Perkins putteth at the yeere 290. but because Perkins in Praepar ad Demon. Probl. and Rivet in his Crit. sac makes it a spacious booke as mentioning on Psal 119. the Pelagian heresie which came up above sixscore yeeres after Arnobius his time I shall not attempt to fight against a shadow Albeit the place being of the way of Adults Baptisme concludeth nothing against what wee maintaine Lâ—do Vives Ludovicus Vives is the next who in his notes upon Austin de Civitate Dei l. 1. cap. 26. saith the Treatise but it 's rather cap. 27 as Hen. Den. more truely quoteth it affirmeth that in times past no man was brought to bee baptized but those that were come to their full growth who having learned what it concerned desired the same But whether hee that lived but in Henry the eighths dayes or Austin whom hee expounds which lived above twelve hundred yeares agoe had better reason to know what was done of old let any sober minde judge Strabo To the same purpose Walefrid Strabo who lived about the yeare 800. seemeth to speake but Origen who was in the yeare 201. according to Osiander or 230. according to Perkins and Vsher hee mentions Paedobaptisme as from the Apostles as well as Austin doth Melivitan And so doth the Milevitan councell in the yeare 402. according to Wolfius say as much that the Catholique Church hath alwayes understood Infants to bee defiled with Adams sinne and according to the rule of faith to bee on that ground namely amongst others for it 's knowne sundry other gounds were of old urged for Paedobaptisme as that Matth. 19. 13 14 15. Suffer c. For of such c. urged in Tertullians time 200. yeares before as appeares by his assaying to take off that ground in his booke De Baptismo before mentioned baptized See the 1. Tome of Councells SECT V. Bucer THe next witnesse is Bucer in his Annotat. upon the 4th of John set out Anno 28. So much as in the Apostolicall writings are written of baptisme is apparent that baptisme was administred to none by the Apostles but to those of whom concerning their regeneration they made no doubt c. I have looked that very booke and a booke distinct from his greater booke on the Evangelists and there is no such words It 's a meere forgery Bucer is againe cited Proposion 6th saying that Christ hath no where plainly commanded that children should bee baptized If the speech had been just thus yet it 's evident his Intent was not that children ought not to bee baptized by vertue of Gods command which is the direct conclusion subscribed to in the explication of it at Wittenberg by him and others as before but that the command was not in so many words expressed but by necessary consequence to bee concluded His booke intituled The groundworke and cause I have not though like testimonies have been answered before SECT VI. Ruffinus THe next is Ruffinus in his exposition upon the Symbol that those at Rome and Aquila that were to bee baptized must first acknowledge and confesse the 12. Articles of the Creed Here Ruffinus is as one against Paedobaptisme By others when Origens authoritie is urged upon Rom. 5. for Paedobaptisme then it is spurious and the words of Ruffinus Now how should one behave himselfe amidst this contradiction of the antipartie Well wee shall ward off both Blowes as they come God willing As for this testimony as much is in the Treatise and the same place brought out of Austin in his 8th Booke of Confessions that albeit the Authors conceale the name of the place where Victorinus was to have made confession of the faith as the custome was namely at Rome Yea but how then saith Austin lib. 4 cont Donat. cap. 13. 14. that it was ever the use of the Churches and that delivered from the Apostles to baptize Infants Verily both are subordinates and not contraries According to the subjects mentioned if speaking of Adults then the former is true if of Infants then the latter is as true Albeit it 's as true after the custome then in use in Ruffinus his time that Infants did make confession by their sureties as according to God they did and doe now confesse their faith so farre as concerneth their baptisme in their parents even as every man Deut. 16. 17. giving as hee was able their males which personally there appeared came not before the Lord empty not any of them but gave scil in their parents offering for them CHAP. VII SECT I. HIs proofes out of Popish writers as Eckius mentioned in proofe of that and of the 7th Proposition Rossensis Cocletus Ennusius and Staphylus to which some adde Bellarmine I doe not much regard because they can play Legerdemaine fast and loose with a trick that they have If they dispute against Calvinists about the sufficiency of Scripture or validitie of humane traditions then Paedobaptisme is a tradition of the Church If against Anabaptists then Eckius in his Enchiridion here cited hath his foure Scripture arguments to prove it to bee of Scripturall authoritie and foundation For Bellarmine hee hath in his book of Baptisme cap. 8. 3 arguments from Scripture for it And although saith hee wee doe not find it commanded expresly that wee should baptize Infants Tamen id colligitur satis aperte ex scripturis ut supra ostendimus Yet it is to bee gathered plainly enough from Scriptures saith Bellarmine as wee have before shewed Wherefore of such if I may say as hee bluntly once spake to his companion If they can with the same breath blow hot and cold let them even eate porridge with the devill if they will I like not their falshood SECT II. OF Lutherans Pomeranus is quoted whose booke of children unborne I cannot meet with and so cannot trace my Authors here And in such a case as they say Travailers and Souldiers may lie by authoritie when none can contradict them But yet what sayes Dr. Pomeranus that for the space of 1200. yeares men erred concerning children the which wee cannot yet willingly would baptize what his intent is by these words of his cannot well bee gathered If hee intend it of all sorts of children that it is an errour to baptize
and second booke of the Epistles of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius they give grounds from Scripture to the contrary See l. 1. Epist Zwingl ad dilectos fratres I will now tell you from what grounds of Scripture I judge Infants to bee baptized c. and l. 2. in his Epist Bercktold and Francis Preachers at Berne hee saith peremptorily contra Scripturas ergo fecissent Apostoli si Infantibus negavissent baptismum the Apostles therefore had done contrary to Scriptures if they had denied baptisme to Infants See more of Oecolampadius his mind too herein in his Epist to Zwinglius and in that to the Preachers at Berne here therefore are two more witnesses abused in this Treatise CHAP. VI. HEre the Authors forget and mistake their owne witnesses names they are in such a hurry they bring in proofes that the Teachers according to the ancient Fathers right did so and so making the Fathers and those Teachers distinct as persons of whom the testimony is brought and as witnesses by whom and yet in the proofes the ancient Fathers themselves are the witnesses of what was done by those Teachers after them as Hilary Tertullian Arnobius Ambrose c. these might say what was in their time but cannot say what Teachers after them will doe or practise unlesse the Authors can by a spell play the Witch of Endors trick to fetch up old Samuel in his likenesse to speake after he was dead SECT I. BUt let us heare what any of them say if wee have not heard it before Hilary As for Hilaries testimony of his owne baptisme it 's not materiall wee mentioned him among the Authors instances of Adult persons baptized Proposition 3. as for his interpretation of baptizing in or upon the name that is upon confession of the beginners it 's as easily rejected as urged unlesse his grounds were shewed or were Scripture proofe SECT II. Ambrose THe next witnesse is Ambrose de spiritu Sancto l. 2. in our Sacrament there are three questions propounded and three confessions made without which three questions no man can bee washed if Mr. B's answer bee good to that part of Tertullian in the beginning of his booke de baptismo mentioning that a man without cost or pompe is let down into the water Observe saith Mr. B. that hee speakes of a man not of an Infant so I might as well say here hee speakes of a mans baptisme not of an Infants which then also was in use but that I feare some body would sit upon my skirts presently and aske mee whether an Infant be not sub genere isto subalterno hominis whether an Infant bee not homo and I ever thought before Mr. B. helped me with that distinction that when the Scripture saith it 's appointed to all men once to die c. Heb. 9. that Infants also were there counted men to die as well as others not to mention other places of Scripture or authors for the use of the word that way and I wonder Mr. B. when hee supposeth Rom. 5. 18. makes for his fancy of generall redemption of children whether of Pagans or Christians then Infants are men on whom the free gift commeth and yet here homo demissus in aquam in Tertullian must bee onely a growne man not Infants as if Infants now were not homo but this answer must bee better grounded or else I shall keepe my opinion that as an Infant is homo so Tertullians testimony there speaking indefinitely of any baptized person man or woman Infants youths or riper persons c. hee doth beare implicite testimony in that very place to Paedobaptisme as in his time But to returne to Ambrose I say that in Ambrose his time such confessions and questions were and Infants were baptized too that corruption being then in use of adding to Infants baptisme interrogations to them that brought them to baptisme which answered in their names and made confession in their stead For others were baptized in Ambrose his time and before then such as could personally answer or make confession yea and that it was Ambrose his judgement that it was the mind of God that others should bee baptized then could make such confessions witnesse that among other places of Ambrose which hee hath in his 5th Tom. in his Homilies upon Luke Jordan was turned back signifying the future mysteries of salvation in baptisme by which little ones in their Infancy are cleansed from the wickednesse of their natures namely in a Sacramentall way SECT III. BUt it will bee here objected that that custome of susceptors in Infants baptisme and the interrogations and questions that were put to them or others in their stead doth shew that of old none but growne persons were baptized upon confession of faith for that when Infants are baptized they must also make confession by others I answer if the very use of susceptors in baptisme were an argument of force against Infants baptisme of old it might as well bee of force against the baptisme of adult persons too upon the same ground as then in use since they also had of old their susceptors when Pagans desired to be baptized they had those which instructed them before hand and when they were baptized they presented them to baptisme and undertooke for them also Stories are plentifull in instances that after that corrupt custome of susceptors in baptisme came up adult persons had susceptors as well as Infants Epidophorus at Carthage of the Church of Fausty had the Deacon of the Church to bee his susceptor Magdeb. hist cent 5. c. 6. Justinian the Emperour was surety for Gethes King of the Herulians when baptized and divers others the Centurists mention as do other Historian nor doth it follow because such confessions and answers were made by such as brought Infants to bee baptized that therefore it argues onely adults used to bee of old baptized rather it argues that of old it was the doctrine of the Church that Infants were baptized principally in others right which offered them to baptisme namely their godly parents or such as tooke them as their owne adopted children to bring them up in Gods feare Hence even after the corrupt and abusive practise of susceptors came up Stories are not wanting to tell us of Christian parents which were susceptors to their owne children witnesse the Story mentioned by Fabian in his 5th book c. 114. Andovera wife to Chilpericus having a little daughter born in her husbands absence did by the perswasions of the Bishop Fredegrand become witnesse to it her self at its baptisme The Centurists mention the same Story out of Ganguinus Hence also Austin in his 14th Sermon upon the words of the Apostle speaking of Infants Baptisme saith if baptisme profit the baptized I demand whom it benefiteth the beleeving or the unbeleeving but God forbid I should say that Infants are not beleeving I have but now disputed it before Hee beleeveth in another which sinneth in another scil in the parents which