Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	add_v	life_n	part_n	1,720	5	4.3430	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89563	A defence of infant-baptism: in answer to two treatises, and an appendix to them concerning it; lately published by Mr. Jo. Tombes. Wherein that controversie is fully discussed, the ancient and generally received use of it from the apostles dayes, untill the Anabaptists sprung up in Germany, manifested. The arguments for it from the holy Scriptures maintained, and the objections against it answered. / By Steven Marshall B.D. minister of the Gospell, at Finchingfield in Essex.	Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655.	1646 (1646)	Wing M751; Thomason E332_5; ESTC R200739	211,040	270

once the Infants of all Covenanters had this priviledge may I not also exact of you to shew when and where this was taken away who though you goe not about to expunge them out of the book of life yet you expresly expunge them out of visible membership while you say the Jews Infants had it and ours have it not Lastly I added who ever will goe about to deprive them of it to cut off such a great part of the comfort of beleeving Parents must produce clear testimonies before they can perswade beleevers to part with either of them either right to the Covenant or to the seale of the Covenant because next to the glory of God and the salvation of their owne soules their Infants interest in the Covenant is one of the greatest benefits beleevers have from the Covenant of grace even to have their Children belong to Gods family and Kingdome and not to the Devills Children being the greatest treasure of their Parents and the salvation of their childrens soules the greatest treasure in their children and therefore to exclude them out of that society or visible standing where salvation is ordinary is so great a losse or eclipsing of their comfort a● whoever would make them yeeld to it had need produce very strong evidence and much more I said in my Sermon to this purpose You answer Here I am upon my advantage ground in a veine of Oratory and on a subject of all others aptest to move affections to wit Parents tendernesse to their children I confesse in this point I stand upon a vantage ground not in Oratory to which I pretend not but in point of truth had I only spoken words without weight you could and would have discovered their emptiness and scoffed at them sufficiently you make severall small exceptions which I shal briefly touch as First That I touch something too neare upon the Popish Opinion as if I might be guess'd to symbolize with that Opinion of the Papists who judge all unbaptized infants to perish which is not worth the answering Then you demand What comfort doe wee give Parents which the Antipaedobaptists doe not give them as well as we or what discomforts in truth doe they give them which we doe not I answer the difference is very great you leave them in the state of Infidells we in the condition the Jews children were in while they were the people of God wee account them actually belonging to the visible kingdom of Christ you actually to belong to the visible kingdom of the Devill wee leave them under the benefit of that promise I will be the God of thee and of thy feed you acknowledge no more promise for them then for the children of Turks it may be these things are of no account to you but I doubt not but they will bee with your unprejudiced Reader I next proceeded to the maine and onely Objection made against this whole Argument which is this There is no command no expresse institution or cleare example in all the New Testament of baptizing of Infants and in administration of Sacraments wee are not to be led by our owne reason or grounds of seeming probabilities but by the expresse order of Christ and no otherwise You say this is indeed the maine Objection and without answering it all that I have said is to little purpose But Sir did not you formerly grant that upon the proving of my two first Conclusions the whole cause depended if therefore those Conclusions remaine firme there is enough already said to the purpose You adde Vnlesse this Objection be removed the practice of baptizing infants will never be acquitted from Will-worship and that the Prelatists will shew vertuall commands from analogy of the Ceremoniall Law of the Jews and Traditions Ecclesiasticall as ancient as ours for Paedobaptisme for their Prelacy Holy dayes Surplice c. And therefore if I stand not to i● here I must yeeld up my weapons Sure you think you are here like to get some advantage you speake so big but by this time I have had such sufficient experience of your strength that I much feare not your great words First for the point of Will-worship I shall desire you to prove this Conclusion That all things belonging to Christian worship even in the circumstances of it even the ages and sexes of the Persons to whom the Ordinances are to bee applyed must bee expresly set down in the new Testament if you prove not this you say nothing to the purpose for this is our very case I have already shewed the falsenesse of it in the point of the Christians Sabbath for though the Ceremoniall Worship which was a type of Christ be wholly abolished yet not every thing which concerns all Worship which must have an institution is abolished And for the plea which the Bishops and others may pretend from the analogy of the Ceremoniall Law when you shew how they will raise their Arguments which possibly you have more skill and experience to doe then I have as plainly as I doe for Infant-baptisme you may possibly prevaile with the Reader in their behalf And when you shew as much Ecclesiasticall Antiquity for Prelacy Holydayes Surplice c. I shall beleeve your Reading to be greater then I can yet be perswaded of that you have seen some such Monuments of Antiquity which the Prelaticall Party could never yet light upon But I proceed with you I first granted That there is no expresse syllabicall command for baptizing of Infants no expresse example where Children were baptized Sure say you this is a shrewd signe that I am not like to make good my ground having yeelded thus much And why so I pray your very next words leave me ground enough when you say That if it bee made good by good consequence it is sufficient what need was there then of this idle scoffe I added Many other points of high concernment are not expresly laid down in the New Testament a● forbidden degrees of marriage Laws against Polygamy the Law of a weekly Sabbath c. You answer In meere positive Worship it must be so it must have either Precept or Apostolicall example equivalent to a precept found in the New Testament else it is will-worship and this say you is our case in hand I answer as before there is no absolute necessitie that every circumstance of an Ordinance or the severall Sexes or ages to whom an Ordinance ought to bee applyed must bee thus set downe in the New Testament this is sufficiently cleared Part 2. Sect. 8. and part 3. Sect. 1. As for the forbidden degrees of marriage you say there is one branch mentioned and censured in the New Testament viz. the incest●ou● Corinthians case and that is say you a finne against a morall commandement but how would you laugh at such a consequence in another a man may not marry his fathers wife a thing which by the light of nature was abborred amongst the Heathens Ergo

them best capable of the specious answers you bring unto them but I like not that an enemy should have the ordering of the Forces which hee meanes to fight against you must give us leave to choose our own weapons and Marshall our own Forces and then you may try your skill and valour against them Doctor Homes hath made his Annotations upon all the arguments which you have produced according to your owne method Mr. Geree hath chosen out onely those arguments which carry most evidence and not troubled himselfe to examine every thing for my part I humbly conceive that Infant-baptisme is not to be fetched from any one of these grounds singly but is built upon the identity of the Covenant Infants right to the Covenant and the initiall seale and consequently though one Text may be a sufficient medium or Argument to prove some one or two of them yet to make the evidence full these ground● must not be separated one from another but necessary recourse must be had to them all and if all your Arguments doe overthrow any one of them either the Covenants being the same in substance or infants right to the Covenant or the Lords appointing an initiall seale to bee administred to all who are reputed belonging to the Covenant I shall readily yeeld the cause as I have often told you All the trouble I shal put the Reader to about this your first Argument or rather your answer to Arguments shal be to point him to such places in my book where you have already prest the same things and I have given an answer to them The first Argument from Gen. 17. hath beene examined Part 3. Sect. 1 2. and elswhere The second argument taken from Baptism succeeding into the room of Circumcision and Coloss 2. 11 12 c. is examined Part 3. Sect. 9. The third argument from the priviledges of beleevers under the New Testament is examined Part 3. Sect. 11. 7. The fourth argument from Acts 2. ●8 is fully examined Part 3. Sect. 6. The fifth argument from 1 Cor. 7. 14. is examined Part 3. Sect. 8. The sixth argument from Mark 10. 14. Matth. 19. c. which also you put into severall shapes is examined Part 3. Sect. 15. The seventh argument from Acts 16. and severall other places which speake of baptizing of housholds is examined Part 3. Sect 14. And in these severall places you have pressed whatever is of any seeming weight in this your Exercitation and added many other things which the reader shall finde to bee examined in the places which I have pointed to besides in severall other places of my Booke where you have again and again repeated many of the same things The other seven arguments as you call them I looke not upon as arguments and therefore will not meddle with them some of the Scriptures mentioned in them as Exod. 20. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9. c. so farre as they have any use in this controversie are also considered of here and there in my Book as the Reader may observe Your second Argument against Infant Baptisme is fetcht from Mat. 28. 19. That which agrees not with the Lords institution of Baptisme that is deservedly doubtfull But the rite of Infant-baptisme agrees not with the Lords institution of Baptism Ergo. This argument hath received its full examination Part 3. Sect. 13. and Part 4. Sect. 1. whither I refer the Reader as not willing to trouble him with needlesse repetition of the same things Your third Argument is taken from the practice of the Apostles and John the Baptist and runs thus That tenet and practice which being put Baptism cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles did administer it agrees not with the practice of John Baptist and the Apostles But the tenet and practice of Infant-Baptisme being put Baptisme cannot bee administred as Jo. Baptist and the Apostles administred i● Ergo c. This you goe about to prove because John and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed sinnes they required shewes of faith and repentance in all whom they baptized This Argument relates wholly to matter of fact wherein you put your selfe to prove a negative and therefore the argument can prove nothing unlesse you can produce some one place at least out of the Scripture wherein it is said no Infant was baptized by them or no other then such as you have mentioned but what you have here said about it is fully considered Part. 3. Sect. 13. especially Part 4. Sect. 1. These three Arguments which alone deserve to bee called if yet the first may be so called are fully examined in the places above-mentioned the rest of your arguments are so wholly inconsequent that I wonder you should think them worthy or fit to face an Assembly of Divines and expect that they should joyne their strength together to frame an answer to them when as I verily thinke they may all bee routed by the running pen of an ordinary Clerke in a few houres Your fourth is taken from the next age after the Apostles and stands thus in your book Because Infant-baptisme cannot be proved that it was inforce or use in the next age after the Apostles Ergo the tenet and practice of it is doubtfull The major you say is manifest of it selfe for the minor you alledge Vives and Strabo and say you it is confirmed by examining of places brought to that purpose by continuing questions to the parties baptized in ages following and other tokens from Councells and Ecclesiasticall writers I answer First to your Major which you say is manifest of its selfe I judge to bee most false and a most dangerous position is every tenet and practice doubtfull which cannot be proved by historicall evidence to have been received and practiced in that age whereof we have so few Records the procession of the holy Ghost the propagation of originall sinne and many other Tenets I beleeve you will neither find mentioned in that age nor the next How would you have laughed at such a conclusion set downe by another And secondly for your Minor I answer 1. There were no Councells at all assembled in that age next to the Apostles And 2. as for Ecclesiasticall Writers I wish you would name them I beleeve you will find very few Writers of credit in that age whose legitimate workes are transmitted to posterity Thirdly how do Vives and Strabo know what was done in the ages next the Apostles when the eldest of them lived almost 800 years after that age the authority and skill of these two men hath been sufficiently spoken to Part 1. Sect. 2. Fourthly I wonder how the questions propounded in ages following to the baptized doe prove that Infant-Baptisme was not in use in the age next after the Apostles Your fifth argument runs thus That which in succeeding ages in which it was in use was in force first as a Tradition not written Secondly out

added hee seemed afterwards to restraine baptizing Infants to the case of necessity You ask of me Doth he seeme onely to restrain it to the case of necessity He gives say you his reason why they should be baptized but withall declares his opinion that others should stay longer but what of all this what follows hence more then this that in his dayes Infants were baptized though his advice was that they should defer it unlesse there were danger of death These are the Greek Authors alledged by me none of which are denyed by you to testifie the practice of the Church in this point in their severall ages onely your exceptions have been all on the by not against the testimonies themselves which yet notwithstanding what you have answered I doubt not will by any judicious Reader bee allowed for cleare proofes of the practice of Paedo-baptisme in the Greek Church After your examination of the former Testimonies you adde 3 Arguments to shew that Infant-Baptisme was not known in the Greek Church First if it had been known among them you wonder why I finde nothing for it in Eusebius Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus Athanasius and Epiphanius To this I say they spake to the clearing of such questions as were afoot in their times had any question been started when they wrote about Paedo-baptisme no doubt they would have cleared it as Cyprian did and as it was done in the Councell of Neocaesarea It is enough to mee that none of the Authors named by you speake against it can wee say that the Fathers living before the Pelagians troubled the Church denyed the traduction of originall sin because they spake not clearly of it before it was denyed by those cursed Heretiques Nor is it any glory to you that your Error was not ancient enough to be confuted by Eusebius Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus Athanasius and Epiphanius yet whether any of these named by you spake for Infant-Baptisme shall now bee considered I finde even in some of them which you have named expressions which doth induce mee to beleeve that they were farre from rejecting of Paedo-baptisme I will not search into them all for if any thing were brought out of Ignatius you would tell mee that you did not know Ignatius when you see him as you have done with others named before and I have no time to wrangle You desire to know what Clemens Alexandrinus saith why sure he had none but great Infants to his Scholars if you who pretend to be acquainted familiarly with the secrets of antiquity be acquainted with him you 'll know what I meane He desired as it is likely more Greeke Fathers who were converted from Paganisme did to set forth Religion in such a way as might move other Pagans to come and make confession of the Christian faith that so they might be added to the Church by Baptisme in such a way as was proper to the baptizing of grown men The next whose testimony you misse is Athanasius you desire mee to quote any thing out of him to prove the Greeke Church did admit Infants to Baptisme if that will make you cease wondering I 'll doe it what say you to that passage in Athanasius where hee is shewing how we are buryed with Christ in Baptisme and rise againe hee sayes the dipping of the Infant quite under water thrice and raising of it up again doth signifie the death of Christ and his resurrection upon the third day is not that testimony plaine In his Questions ad Antioch in the second question of that booke it is desired to be known how shall we know that he was truly baptized and received the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in holy Baptism when he was a Child it seems then it was a custome for Infants to receive Baptisme He sets down an answer to it that is to be known saith he by the motions of the Spirit in his heart afterwards as a Woman knows she hath conceived when she feels the child to stir in her womb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not because his Parents say so If that place doth not plainly and in an Orthodoxall way beare witnesse to Paedo-baptisme I know not what can doe it I could out of the same Booke adde another testimony but you will perhaps tell me the words next following those that I shall cite are questioned But I shall then reply 1. The words that follow may bee erroneous and yet written by Athanasius 2. The words which I shall cite may be the words of Athanasius and the words which follow none of his but added by some other 3. How doe you prove that Tertullian or Greg. Nazianzen wrote those words which you cite out of them 4. You can more then once make this a plea for your selfe that your allegations may gaine a favourable construction That your proofes taken out of Antiquity doe ●s strongly prove the point in hand as proofes are usually taken in such matters I doubt not but all impartiall Readers will vouchsafe me the same favourable graines of allowance and then this testimony also of Athanasius may passe for currant These words then which are safe sound grounded upon the same Scripture which I have much insisted on are read in the works of Athanasius where the question is about Infants dying requiring a resolution that might clearly set forth whether they goe to be punished or to the Kingdom The answer is Seeing the Lord said Suffer little children to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven And the Apostle sayes Now your children are holy observe that Gospel ground the same that I build upon it is manifest that the Infants of beleevers which are baptized doe as unspotted and faithfull enter into the Kingdome This assertion is owned by all the Reformed Churches Epiphanius you say sayes nothing of it in a place which you cite and are you sure he sayes nothing any where else admit he doth not forme a Syllogisme and see how your argument will run c. but I desire you at your leasure to cast your eye upon that expression of Epiphanius which doth induce mee to beleeve that hee did not reject Paedo-baptisme where hee tells us That Circumcision had its time untill the great Circumcision came that is the washing of the new birth as is manifest to every one What 's the washing of Regeneration but Baptisme which he would scarcely have called Circumcision if hee had rejected Infant-Baptisme and denyed that the children of beleevers who are hopefully capable of Circumcision made without hands may lawfully partake of this great Circumcision and addes That this was notoriously knowne to all surely then none denyed it in his time Secondly you reason from the continuance of the Questions put to persons when they were to be baptized and answered by them which I think because we must conceive children were not able to returne an answer to them thereby you would

because hee disswadeth by so many Reasons in his Booke of Baptisme c. 18. the baptizing of Infants And you adde If he did allow it it was onely in case of necessity as may appeare by his words in his booke De Anima ca. 39. Though my task in this examination of your Examen bee onely to make good what I said before in my Sermon yet you shall have my answer to this place quoted by your self whereby it may appeare there are more witnesses to confirm the same truth which I avouched but onely by the testimonies of a few Tertullian indeed in the former of these places is perswading men to defer both the Baptism of children and others who are of age Yet I beseech you tell me doth he not therein intimate that it was the custome of the Church in his age to baptize the one as well as the other otherwise I see no reason why he should desire that they would defer the one as well as the other And what 's the reason of his delay such as did undertake or promise for children were in danger whilst they promised on their behalf that which by reason of their own mortality and increase of evill disposition in children afterwards might make them breake or destroy their promise his words are these Pro cujusque personae conditione de dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio Baptismi utilior est praecipue tamen circa parvulos Quid enim necesse est si non cam necesse sponsores etiam periculo ingeri qui et ipsi per mortalitatem destruere promissiones suas possunt proventu malae indolis falli Is it not evident by that place that Baptisme was administred in all ages even to little ones and that there were some who undertooke that they should perform the promises made by them on their behalf onely this custome of baptizing them did not very well please Tertullian wherefore he seeks to disswade from it but never pleads against it as an unlawfull thing or an abuse of Christs institution as you doe yet how displeasing a delay of that nature was to others famous in the Church hath been cleared by severall testimonies before here may you take notice of one even before Cyprian in the Latine Church that beares witnesse against you that in his time children were baptized This truth is so perspicuously laid down by him that you cannot deny it and therefore you come with an if and say If hee did allow it it was onely in case of necessity for this you refer me to his book de Anima c. 39. where having reckoned up the idolatry and superstitious fooleries of the heathen at the birth of their children he speaks of children one of whose Parents is holy and confesses both by the priviledge of their birth and profession they are designati sanctitatis ac per hoc etiam salutis not sancti till they be born of water and the Spirit but in that place is altum silentium of his allowing baptism to them in case of necessity as you say wherein if a man told you that you did overlash he should not wrong the truth But before wee part with Tertullian give mee leave to aske the question whether the disswasion which you cite out of Tertullians booke de Baptismo may not reasonably bee interpreted of the Infants of Infidells because in that Chapter Tertullian speakes of the baptisme of such as were not born of Christian Parents such as the Eunuch and St. Paul and therefore hee desires that the Baptisme of such Infants should bee deferred till they came to yeares and were able to make confession of their sinnes and profession of their faith their Parents being Infidels and their Sponsors mortall for what saith hee though these Infants may have some Sponsors to undertake for their Christian education yet their Sponsors may die before they are capable of instruction and then that promise is void and of none effect And I am very much inclined to beleeve that this is the true meaning of the place because it is cleare and evident by the 39. Chapter of his book de Anima that Tertullian did acknowledge that the children of beleevers had a kinde of priviledge which he calls prerogative by their birth besides that of their education and therefore in case the Sponsors who undertook for the education of the Infants of Pagans did live yea and give those Infants due education yet there was a great difference between them and the Infants of beleevers who had such a birth priviledge as gave them right to Baptisme and by Baptisme and the Spirit saith he they are made what they were by God designed to be holy indeed Because I will give you and the learned Readers light enough I will transcribe the passage at large and give you leave to judge for I hope you will make it appeare that you are pius Inimicus and passe judgement upon my side when you have received some new light if it bee new to you but truly I feare that you saw something in this 39 Chapter which made against you and therefore you doe barely cite the Chapter and not set down the words of the Author which was not so fairly done be pleased then to peruse the testimony in words at length and not in figures Hin● enim Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativa quam ex institutionis disciplina caeterum inquit immundi nascerentur quasi Designatos tamen sanctitatis ac per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios ut hujus spei pignora matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinarentur Alloquin meminerat Dominicae definitionis nisi quis nascatur ex aqua spiritu non introibit in regnum Dei id est non erit sanctus Sir are you not now convinced that Tertullian did conceive that the Infants of beleevers had such a sanctity as I called Covenant-holinesse by the prerogative and priviledge of their birth as gave them a right to baptisme I would not abuse Tertullian as you did Origen and other Reverend and Learned men and therefore have given you a faire interpretation out of his owne words I beleeve by this time you are sicke of Tertullian let us confer with Cyprian and his 66 Colleagues upon whom you have passed a Magisteriall censure Cyprian say you saith enough and more then enough except hee spake to better purpose if that which hee hath spoken be weighed in the ballance of your judgement his words though many will be found but light yet you say that Hierom and especially Augustine relyed upon that Epistle for the proving of baptizing Infants for my part I am more strengthened in my Opinion of the worth of Cyprian's words in that Epistle by this your confession for had there not been solidity and truth in what hee said learned Hierom and Reverend Augustine two eminent men in the Church though

Church of old and wonders that Strabo should rely upon so weake an argument as hee doth and I as much wonder that you knowing all this should boast so much of such broken Reeds And so I leave you and your men and shall expect to see what reliefe you will bee able to give them for they can give none to you More Testimonies you say you could have added out of sundry Authors which I hardly beleeve seeing you are forced to rake up an old use continued in some Cities of Italy onely upon the hearesay of Vives But these you say are enough to you and you thinke to any that search into antiquity to prove that the custome of Baptizing of Infants was not from the beginning and therefore is but an innovation I verily beleeve upon your next search into Antiquitie you will be of another mind And for your confident assertion that the Doctrine that Baptisme is to be● given to Infants of Beleevers onely because of Covenant-holinesse is not elder then Zuinglius Zuinglius I confesse was a great Patron of this cause who in a publike dispute did so convince and stop the mouths of the Anabaptists that they appearing to the Magistrates unreasonably obstinate were banished the Citie But whereas you say hee is the first that you can finde that maintained the Baptisme of Infants upon this ground I shall be glad to helpe you peruse but what is before your eyes and you shall find Tertullian and Athanasius pleading the right of Infants to the Kingdome of heaven upon Covenant holinesse you may finde Epiphanius Cyprian Nazianzen Augustine Chrysostome and others pleading Baptisme to come in the roome of Circumcision and divers of them pleading Infants right to Baptisme from the Jewes Infants right to Circumcision which to mee is all one as to plead it from Covenant-holinesse you may also finde even the Pelagians acknowledging a Divine Institution for it secundum sententiam Evangelii And now I hope it will not offend you if I say I am sorry you discover so much either ignorance or negligence in the search of Antiquity as to say The Tenet and Practise of Infant-baptisme accordingly as wee hold and practise is not much above 100. yeers old so farre as you can find To conclude this part of my Treatise about the Antiquity of Infant-Baptisme give me leave to adde these few things First that I should not have judged it convenient to have made so much search into the practise of antiquity if you had not so confidently undertaken to shew that the ancients were of your mind and that I perceive your faire showes make many begin to thinke it was as you affirme and therefore taking my selfe bound to give the best account I could with truth I have not onely made what diligent search I could my self but have also which I willingly acknowledge that no man may thinke of my reading above what it is made use of my friend who is better versed in their writings then I am lest the truth in this matter of practise might suffer through my weaknesse who have but just leasure enough to looke into these Authors now and then and consult them upon occasion Yet had it been needfull I could have added many other testimonies out of the Antients to let you see that they approved Infant-Baptisme and affirmed that Baptisme came in the place of Circumcision as the Author of the Booke De Vocatione Gentium lib. 1. cap. 7 Cyrill Alexandrin in Levis lib. Isychius Presbyter in Levit. lib. 2. cap. 6. and many more Secondly in this search I find that the Ancients did not thinke that all who died unbaptized were damned as you usually charge them They conceived that Martyrs were baptized with their blood and therefore might bee saved though they were not baptized with water When great Basil discoursed of this point in his Homily of the 40. Martyrs he saith of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was baptized not by another or the saith of another but by his owne faith not in water butin his owne blood Here Baptisme by water was denyed and yet salvation attained by a two fold Baptisme by faith and in blood Yea I also observe that they who were no Martyrs were in the judgement of the Ancients sufficiently baptized by the holy Ghost without blood or water and for proofe of this point I shall produce a testimony out of Augustine whom I cite the rather because upon second thoughts hee did retract his opinion and acknowledge that Baptisme was not Absolutely necessary to salvation Martyrdome might suffice without Baptisme nay faith and conversion of the heart might suffice without Martyrdome or Baptisme in case a man were cast into such straights that hee could not be made partaker of Baptisme Etiam atque etiam considerans inv●nio saith hee non tantum passionem pro nomine Christi id quod ex Baptismo deerat posse supplere sed etiam fidem conversionemque cordis si forte ad celebrandum Mysterium Baptismi in angustiis temporum succurri non potest in his fift booke De Baptismo contra Donatistas observe that hee saith etiam atque etiam considerans c. and therefore I told you this was his judgement upon second thoughts and more mature deliberation And when this point came to be debated in after ages the Church tooke notice of this Retractation Bernard discourses upon this subject at large in his 77. Epistle and proves clearely out of Ambrose and Augustine that invisible sanctification was sufficient to salvation without a participation of the visible Sacrament Invisibilem sanctificationem quibusdam affuisse profuisse sine visibilibus Sacramentis Solam interdum fidem sufficere ad salutem et sine ipsâ sufficere nihil c. Faith alone saith hee that is faith without Martyrdome is sufficient to salvation and nothing but saith for though Martyrdome saith Bernard there may supply the defect of Baptisme wee must not conceive that the punishment or suffering prevailes but the faith of him that suffers Sufficiet spiritus solus saith Blesensis one that 's as ancient as Bernard more ancient then your Walafridus Strabo quia ipsius testimonium pondus habet It is also cleare and evident that after this opinion prevailed Infant-Baptisme was not rejected and therefore you are extreamely mistaken in this point Now if in the opinion of the ancients men of growne yeers might bee saved without Baptisme if they were either converts or Martyrs why may not elect Infants who are certainly sanctified bee made happy without Baptisme when they have been made holy by the spirit of holinesse could any of the ancients reasonably grant the one and deny the other Thirdly you may see that in pleading for this universall practise I speake no louder then other Reformed Divines for the antiquity of Infant-Baptisme Judicious Calvin who was well versed in Antiquitie in his instruction against the Anabaptists hath these words I affirme that this holy Ordinance of