him as the Pharisees did upon our Saviour and have said thou bearest witness of thy self for thy self thy witness is not true they would have given a check or denyal to such a Custom accused it of Novelty or but of Yesterday and so have turned off easily that Argument which of all other lay most heavily upon them the Ancient Churches Custom and Practice in Baptizing Infants But they never did that as who could not deny this And so that other exception against Augustine as if he should utter and urge this in Heat and Passion against Pelagius his Adversary in point of Baptizing of Infants and speak more of the Custom and Practice of the Church than was true falleth of it self For they differed not in that point of Infant-Baptism no nor in the matter of the Custom of the Church herein For so Augustine affirmeth both in his first Book of the Merit and Remission of Sin The Peloagians themselves do grant that little Children are to be Baptized as who cannot come in or stand up against the Authority of the Vniversal Church delivered without doubt or Traditioned by our Lord and his Apostles And again in the eleventh Book against Caelestius and Pelagius He affirms and cites that Caelestius in a Book of his written at Rome acknowledged that Infants in a Book of his wirtten at of sin according to the Rule of the universul Church and according to the sense and meaning of the Gospel and Therefore Pelagius not daring to deny though otherwise impudent enough the General Practice of the Ancient Church in Baptizing Infants as who then and that way might have slipt his neck out of the Collaror Yoke Augustine held him to was feign to shist off that Fathers Argument as well as he could but very poorly and pittifully That the Church Baptized indeed Infants but not for the washing away of original fin which he denyed in Infants but for the better bringing them to the Kingdome of Heaven which Christ said was of such as theirs And truly this makes a great Addition to the Truth of this The Custom and Practice of the Universal Ancient Church in Baptizing lnsants that Pelagius so great a Schollar and Travellour who had seen the Customas and Practices the manners and fasthions of the Affricane and Asiatiqne yea and Europaean Churches being also himself a Brittish born should not as indeed he could not make any denyal or take any exception thereto as who by his own eyes and experience saw found it to be most true and uniform and so I may say our Baptism of Infants is a true Baptism and the Ancient Churches Practice hereof is a true Practice even our enemies themselves being Judges as Deut. 32.31 〈◊〉 why then was not Augustine himself Baptized in his In … y who was such as strong Advocate for the Baptism of Infants the Reason is plain and makes nothing against our Infant Baptism or the General Practice of the Church for neither his Father nor Mother were Christians or Believers when himself was born and they continued so untill a little before their death Augustine himself was not converted from his Manichean Haeresies and other vices untill the 31. year of his age who two years continuing a Catechumen and in the mean time writing somethings to give proof and testimony of the truth of his conversion or of his conversion to the Truth was Baptized himself and his Son Adeodate together like as Ahraham was circumcised with Ismeal his Son on the self-same day These things may be seen in His Confessions I shall need to adde no more for the shewing Infant-Baptism to have been the Custom and Practice of all the former Ancient Churches Augustines Testimony of the same is to me instead of all and as Goliahs Sword to David there is none like that Give it me 1 Sam 21.9 I have taken it and I give it thee not as a single Testimony of one Father for it but as a Quadruple witness of the Universal Church and its Custom and Practice for the point of Paedobaptism being four times expresly deliveced though by one and the same Father Saint Austin Yet I may for more perspicuity sake follow up this General Testimony by one Father unto its Particulars I mean the Covattestations of other particular Fathers in their several ages You have heard what Augustine hath said and written as for that Century For the year 390. 384. and those years wherein he lived Hierom In his Epistle ad Laetam having told her that the good and the evill of little once are imtured much to their Parents he addeth in the middle of that Epistle unless perhaps you think the Sons of Christians is they receive not Baptism They onely are guilty of sin and that the wickedness also thereof is not to be referred or to redound to the Parents who would not give it especially at or in such a time wherein they could not contradict who were to receive it In his Book against the Pelagians towards the end he is for Infant-Baptism and confirms it by allerdging the Authority of Cyprian and his Colleagues In the same third Book against Pelag it is thus Crito i.e. Pelagian saith grant me thus much at lest that they are without sin who cannot sin speaking of Infants To whom Atticus i.e. Hieronimus Answereth I will Grant it if they have been Baptized in Christ and again They are without any Sin through the Grace of God which they have received in Baptism Chrysostom Arch-Bishop of Constantinople For the year 382. in his Homil. to the Neophytes is for the Baptism of Children and in his 40. Homil upon Genes calls Baptism our Circumcision His being not Baptized untill he was 21. years of age doth not prejudice here as whose Father and Mother were not Christians at his birth and who himself was brought up under Libanius an enemy to and a scoffer at Religion but after he was instructed in the Divinity knowledge by Miletus a Bishop and Baptized of him In his Homil ad Neoph having spoken of the Honours and Benefits of Baptism he saith a little from the beginning For this cause we Baptize the little Infants that they may not be defiled with sin that to them may be added Sanctity Righteousness Adoption Inheritance Fraternity of Christ That they may be all his Members and the Habitation of the Spirit In his 40. Homil upon Genes having spoken of Circumcision appointed to the Children of the Jewes and the pain of the Incision he addeth but our Circumcision or the grace of our Baptism brings the medicine without without such dolour and Innumerable benefits with it It hath indeed no definite time set down for it as that hath but it is lawful to receive both in the first and in the middle and in the last age this not made with hands Circumcision in which there is susteined no great pain but the weight of sins are put off and Remission of them is
upon it for the strengthening themselves in their own opinion of Infant-Baptism Origen the Schollar and Disciple of Clemens Alexandrinus For the year 204. so forward a Schollar that at eighteen years of his age he set up a School and taught others in his fift Book to the Rom. 6. c. the Church hath received the Tradition from the Apostles even or also to little Children to give Baptism because in them as in all are the Genuine or ingenerated filths of sin the which ought to be washed with water and the Spirit Somewhat more of this there is in his eighth Book upon Levit 8. Homil. and upon Luke Homil. 14. Tertullain whom Cyprian read so diligently and esteemed so highly For the year 195. that in all matters of doubt he would have recourse to him saying Give me my Master meaning Tertullian in his Book of Baptism chap. 18. According to the Condition disposition and also age of every person the delaying of Baptism is more profitable especially in and about Infants for what necescessity is there if it be not so necessary to bring the suerties into danger of not performing their promise and whether this be meant of the Children which were not born of Christian Parents as some will or of the Children of believing Parents as others say its evident that Baptism was administred in all ages and he intimates the Custom and practice of the Church in his age to Baptize them even Children as well as others Though he seems not to be so well pleased with it and yet again the words import no other then that he denyed the Necessity onely of Baptism to them being out of danger of death not simply the Baptizing of them rather as in another place he doth imply they ought to be Baptized if there be danger or fear that afterwards they may not or cannot be Baptized in his Book of the Soul Chap. 39. and 40. where he saith that Infants of believing Parents or one Parent have such a Sanctity and that from the Privilege of their Birth not the discipline of their bringing up as gives them a Right to Baptism Therefore Tertullain calleth the Children of Believers The designees or destinates of Holiness or as elsewhere the Candidates of Holiness and so here is an evidence for that Birth Holiness or foederal Holiness of which I shall speak anon out of the 2 of Acts. Irenaeus 2 Book For the year 170. Chap. 39. He came to save all by himself I say all who are born again by him into God Infants and little ones and Children and yong men and old men c. The intention of the words is of Christ Jesus who as it followeth there went through every age to Infants made an Infant Sanctifying Infants to little ones made a little one sanctifying those of that age but you see there is an expression of Infants of whom he saith they are born again into or unto God that is Baptized for so Baptism is usually stiled by the Ancients especially the Greeks a Renascence or New Birth or Palingensy as might be shewed out of Athanasius and Basil who took it from the Apostolique manner also of speaking Tit. 3.5 as before I mentioned I can go no higher for Irenaeus was the Schollar and Disciple of Polycarpus and Polycarpus was the Schollar or Disciple of John the Evangelists and to you see I am come up to the very skirts and thresholds of the Apostolique Churches and Primitive Times with the Custom and Practice of Baptizing Infants Some go yet higher to Justin Martyr quaest resp ad orthod qu. For the year 130 90 60 56. and so to Clemens the Roman Bishop in his Apostolical constit lib. 6. cap. 15. and to Dyonisius Areopagita in his Eccles Hietarchy Ch. last And indeed there are pregnant places in them for Baptizing Infants if the Authors were Legitimate they are so good and sufficient against the Papists who own them and maintain them for true and Genuine but with us they are held to be suppositions and spurious and though many good and true things are in them as Infant-Baptism c. Yet they are not belonging to such venerable Names as those I have rchearsed and therefore not of that Antiquity with them and so impertinent to my purpose Onely one thing I must ad to satisfie the Reader why on this side of Augustine towards the Apostles I have mentioned no more of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church seeing there were many more or what were they discrepant in their opinion about the Baptism of Infants no sure the reason must needs be this they all lived long before Pelagius came out from the Brittish Seat and gathered to himself a Sect of Locusts which spread over the world and troubled the Churches with this matter for one they denying the Traduction of originall sin in Infants Therefore those Ancient Fathers of the Church having no occasion to intermeddle with any such matters about Infant-Baptism kept close onely to such controversies and questions as were on foot in their dayes save onely that Cyprian as I touched before was questioned hereabouts the silence of those Fathers that touched not upon it gives consent to the Practice as unquestioned by them but God would put words of it it to the mouthes of some of them to be witnesses unto posterity of the Antiquity of Infant-Baptism and the Churches Practice The like answer may be given why in those two General Councels the Nicene and the Constantinopolitan and some other Provincial ones which were before Augustine nothing is touched upon in their Canons about Baptism of Infants except that of Cyprian and his 66 Colleagues before mentioned because it was at a thing never in question amongst them never opposed by any and yet that was a very sruitful age of haeretical weeds springing up in those purer times witness the Munichees Arrians Donatists Macedonians Aaerians Eunomians Luciferians c. amongst all which not an Antipaedobaptist not any that so much as made scruple at it which sure some or other in malice or envy to the Church would have done if they could have found how to have shaken that as they did all other Foundations of Christinaity But after Augustines time when Pelagius arose Then the Councils came in against him thick and threefold as the Milevitane or Council of Carthage in the year 402. 418. Canon 11. and the Gerundense Council held in Spain 518. Can. 5. and the Bracarense Council the 2. 572. Can. 7. And so the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are ever and anon storming of Pelagius and his adhaerents And now Sir I know all this Labor is lost as to you who are and desire to be but a man of to day and for ever but for yesterday or Antiquity there you will leave even Christ and his Church and go no farther you are none of the old Martiald Souldiery but the New Modell'd Militia and yet you may remember how you began
give not the Believers And Christ of old too gave the Keyes and the power of them one part whereof is this setting apart of persons to the administring of holy Ordinances to Peter and the Apostles as bearing the persons of the Pastors and Guides of the Church Mat. 16.19 and not as representing the Church of Believers for then these also must have power to binde and loose in earth and heaven by Censures John 20.23 as well as the Apostles and Pastors and so women and children may come in for it as Believers I could never see yet that the Ministery of the separation had any separation to the Ministery just and right according to the good old way onely a kinde of popular Democratical designation they have but no authoritative or official Ordination which is Aristocratical But why do you not speak out to the full Was he your brother set apart of the Church i.e. your selves the Brethren to administer the Ordinances of Christ and was he not also authorized to give Orders or do you mean these also orders by them Ordinances how else will you be given to preaching or be a gifted Preacher ere long if not already Nay when your Church and the Brethren did set him apart to the Ministery did not your Church and Brethren give him Orders and Ordination to the purpose that so he might give back again to your Church and any of the Brethren Orders and Ordination and so make yours a very orderly Church indeed in running round in a ring until you be turn-sick and giddy-headed But enought of this having spoken largely of it in the Instruction of the Scribe § 3. Set apart of the Church but how I ask You say by fasting and prayer and this was all it seems And why not also by Laying on of Hands according to the good old way laid open and plain in the Text before cited Acts 13.3 and tracked or traced by St. Paul 1 Tim. 4.14 and 2 Tim. 1.6 Thus of old they the holy Spirit and the Apostles did set apart Brethren to the administring of the Ordinances and this of old namely the Laying on of Hands also was a note of conferring ministerial power and authority as a means also of procuring spiritual gifts and abilities Now the things which god hath joyned together in the constitution and sending out of a Minister in holy Ordinances let no man put asunder or set apart Fasting Prayer and Laying on of hands none do or will but such as have a spirit of Division and Separation an humor of Novelty and Innovation and therefore I do not wonder at it in you Besides you had no hands to impose in such a business they are too short to reach up and to lay upon the head of a Brother as to Commission or Ordain him or set him apart as from God for the sacred administration of Baptism you mouths shut up by fasting and your hearts enlarged by prayer may do well as to commend and present him to God for his blessing and confirmation of his graces when such are rightly and duly set apart § 4. You have done now with your set apart Brother but there is another matter yet to be done according to the old way for they also in the 13. Acts 4. sent away Paul and Barnabas And so Rom. 10.15 How shall or can they preach or baptize except they be sent True St. Paul saith Christ sent me not to baptize 1 Cor. 1.17 chiefly and primarily but to preach yet he baptized as well as preached and intimateth that Christ sent him to do both as being conjunct parts of the Ministery Mat. 28.19 20. though distinct offices in themselves and the one preeminent to the other at leastwise in St. Paul But now you were not in a capacity as to this sending out of a Brother to administer this or other publique holy Ordinances as he would not take this honor to himself to be an Ambassadour of Chriâ—â— so you and your Brethren could not give it unto him and send him forth for that you must be sent your selves before you can send others to go forth into the nations Teaching and Baptizing So Christ himself John 20.21 As my Father sent me so send I you In a word was or is your Brothers separation to administer Baptism and other Ordinances ordinary or extraordinary If extraordinary then your Church did nothing here for that is neither of man nor by man you did not then set apart If ordinary then your Church had nothing here to do as which it self was never set apart or sent out from Christ and his Authority to such purpose This being not done as yet to you or him you may think what you will of your Creature and admire your Feature your Brother set apart Dipper is still in the estate and condition as your selves and as before he was for any thing you have done a Brother but no Minister a Separate no Set apart a Dipper but no Baptizer a Lay Teacher but no lawful Preacher And I will tell you what Austin saith of such and I will tell it you in Latine because you understand it Si Laicus Baptismum dederit null â cogente necessitate alieni muncris est usurpatio lib. 2. contra Parmen cap. 13. This I desire you to English to your Brother And because perhaps you were enjoyned before your dipping to renounce your Latine also as a profane thing or else since your dipping you may have drowned much of your Latine or drained it from you I will give you another saying of Tertullian in English in his book of Baptism To give Baptism is in truth the Bishops right after him it belongeth to Priests and Deacons but not to them without Authority from him received for so the honor of the Church which being kept preserveth peace were it not in this respect the Laity might do the same all sorts might give even as all sorts receive But because emultation is the mother of Schisms Let it content thee which art of the order of Lay men to do it in necessity when the state of time or place or person thereunto compelleth for them is their boldness priviledged that help when the circumstance of other mens dangers craveth it Both these learned and pious Fathers yield even to a Lay man such a one as your Brother or your self to baptize in a case or state of necessity and one of them enlargeth it To time place or persons I shall but guess at the particular meanings of them if I miss let who can and will rectifie me I will thank him for you I know cannot if you would 1. The case of necessity in state of Time is when the Christian party unbaptized is in present danger of death and no lawful Minister at hand or to be suddenly procured 2. The case of necessity in state of Place is when Pagans are converted and a Church there to be planted and no ordained Minister amongst the Converters
hurtful neither is it prejudicial to the baptized party whether it be once or thrice dipped and immerged but so much I have said to shew the vanity of your boast of the good old way of your dipping insomuch as you have thrice digressed from Antiquity therein as is hitherto proved Yea you are gone from the present way of your Mother and not onely Brother-church of Rome which hath lately sided with you gone cheek by joyl with you sided said I nay rather headed you and the other Sects amongst us for so she hath given over her old way of the Trine-immersion and is upon the new path of Trine-aspersion and you have left her also in both both in the number of Trine or thrice as also in the matter of aspersion or sprinkling in this your once dipping and immerging and thus you forsaking your friends walking alone by your selves yet going to and fro in the earth and walking up and down in it yea compassing sea and land to get proselytes your friends may perhaps at last forsake you and leave you to your selves and your bad new way to walk alone and wilder your selves But I come to a fourth and last difference 4. The Ancients dipped and immerged and though they made it mysterious and significant yet they the learnedest of them thought it not absolutely necessary but adiaphorous and therefore held it but as an Ecclesiastical custom and tradition as Hierom. dial adver Lucif whom I cited but even now expresly calls it such morem traditionem Ecclesiae and so Basil lib. de Spiritu sancto cap. 27. by way of Question demands this of the thrice dipping how came it to us and that other of renouncing the devil and his angels from what Scripture have we it and then answereth it by an affirmative in a negative interrogation have we it not rather from an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from a private and secret instruction or tradition for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to the liberty of it and no necessity hereof being a consequence hereupon I shall say more afterwards As for those that owned and held this dipping and especially the thrice dipping to be either a Divine precept or an Apostolical tradition unwritten and nonscript they were either minoris vel nulliusfidei as the Canons of the Apostles as they are called Can. 50. and Basilius is cited by the Papists in the Book before alledged by me for making the thrice dipping an Apostolical and necessary tradition but it 's answered by Whitakers desc cont 1 quest 6. and so also by Rivet in his Criticus cap. 20. who both acknowledge they had it from Erasmus in Epist aa Johannem Episc Culmensem that that Book de Spiritu sancto is not any true and genuine work of the great Basil but a spurious and supposititious one especially in the later half thereof by some one that would be great in Basil and therefore though I cited a testimony a little before out of the 27 Cap. of that Book de Spiritu sancto bearing the name of the great Basil like as Vessius and others do yet I will not stand upon it as I need not having another Authentique one standing by him which is that of Hierom for that I hear of it by those learned above mentioned and read also my self in that 27 Chapter for though the words that I have cited thereout may bear a good sense by themselves yet finding the drift of that 27 Chapter being to equal or to adjoin Traditions of which a great many are there named and this amongst the rest unto the written word of the holy Spirit as Apostolical and necessary I do suspect those words before of private and secret or hidden doctrine as I rendred them to bend and incline that way Others lesse credible Ancient Authors there are who make this Trine immersion and Apostolical tradition yea precept as Pelagius Papa Anno 510. who is cited by Gratian de consec dist 4. can 10. makes it a precept in those words because of the three Persons named in the Precept Go baptize all Nations in the Name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost and Theodoretus l. 4. haeret Fabular Which book is thought to be none of his by reason of some fabulous things in it and so this way generally the opinion of the later Roman Church whilst they held to the Trine-immersion that it was a necessary Apostolical tradition and the like I beleeve they are as ready to say now they have left that of their Trine aspersion to which they have be taken themselves now at last And you also and yours are of the same opinion for your once dipping and immerging that it is of Divine prescription and Apostolical tradition who adhere so peremptorily to it disallowing and condemning all of us and other Churches who practise aspersion and sprinkling for heretical and antichristian and our baptism for unlawful and invalid And therefore I shall now also give you a little of Antiquity to 〈◊〉 for our sprinkling and aspersing of water with the hand upon the party baptized or our pouring or laying on of water upon some part head or face of the same whereby it shall be made to appear to be also a good and old way of baptizing But shall I need to add any more of this I have given you already the Testimonies of some of the Ancients for the same in the third difference I made 'twixt your and the Ancients dipping and immerging and the Example of Laurentius so baptizing Lucillus by pouring water upon his head and so also he baptized one of the Souldiers who brought Vrceum cum aqua and took his time and offered it to St. Laurence that so he might be that Souldier baptized of him which could be no otherwise then by taking water out of the Pitcher or Pail or Kettle with his hands and pouring it upon him even his head and this was much about Cyprians time in year 250. And therefore sure it was the practice in Cyprians time yea and it was his very judgement given hereupon to one by name Magnus Epist 76. who propounded the Question to him whether the weak and sick who could not be dipt but were onely perfusi sprinkled or aspersed with water were truly Christians and obtained grace He answered Let it not move any quod aspergi vel perfundi videantur aegri that the sick are aspersed or poured upon with water at their Baptism for that also they partake of the Lords grace seeing the holy Scripture by the Prophet Ezekiel saith I will sprinkle upon you pure water and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness of which Text I have made use before to the same purpose So likewise I have shewed the Antiquity thereof from Eunomius and the Eunomians who living about the year 360. did wet the head down to the breast in their baptizing and I have pressed it out of the Greek word which
wicked one they held their baptisme good and valid and would not repeat it being performed in the true Essentials the form of Words and matter of Water as before yea and when such were converted and returned into the Church they did note rebaptise them but received them and held them in that baptisme which they had in their Schism and Heresie knowing the same to have been according to the form prescribed I have no reason I confesse to put a weapon of an objection into your hands out of 19. Acts 5. but if I do it is to take it out of your hands again both to give you a blow in present and prevent an after-blow It is indeed there thus said When they heard this they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus and it s said before Verse 3. that they were baptised unto Johns Baptism This Text hath been much and mightily urged and pressed even to the Vexation of the Spirit by your torturing Anabaptists and truly the words lye doubtfully and ambiguously at the first hearing as if Paul baptised the Disciples of Ephesus with the Baptisme of Christ who had before received the Baptisme of John and were never full and well cleered and explicated until Beza took them in hand who ingeniously confesseth that he received the same interpretation from that Noble Pious Vertuous and Industrious Divine Philippus Marnixius that singular ornament of the Belgick Church who was born in 1538. and dyed in 1598. and lies in body buried at Leyden I say this because his name ought to be precious in the Churches even for this interpretation though he wrote Commentaries upon divers other books of the Bible and so ought the name of Theodorus Beza to be venerable with us as that singular ornament of the Gallick Church for the like Piety Industey Learning and Vertue as by whose means this interpretation came to our hands of this Church I remember I have read it or heard it written and spoken and I may I think write it speak it again that as when God found David he sound a Man after his own heart So when David found Mollerus he found an expounder according to his heart and I may apply it thus here also That when Christ found Paul he found a chosen vessel and beloved Apostle after Christ own heart and when he found Luke he found a choise Historiographer of the Acts of the Apostles after his heart and a beloved Physician besides so when Luke found Beza and Beza Marnixius he found interpreters of them after his own heart and Beloved Divines moreover But what need such a Trumpet afore hand The Almes given the interpretations given by these wo thies will deserve it and I do not blow this for your sake Sir but others that may perhaps read it The sum of the Interpretation is this that in the 5th Verse above cited Luke speaks not of any Baptisme done by Saint Paul But Saint Paul speaks on still of Johns Baptisme and so you and all Anabaptists are blown away from this Text as to any Anabaptisme or Rebaptisations hence to be had This is a short and sweet interpretation if it can be proved Yes learned Beza proves it and that from the two Greek Conjunctive Particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I pray Sir stand aloof if you be afraid but you shall not need I do not Conjure It is no Heathen Greek no humane learning be content that for this once or twice If I did it before that I may write or speak a little Greek it being the Christian Greek and Divine Learning These two particles ever have relation one to the other knitting together the parts of the Verse or Verses and make them answer fitly one to the other Therefore the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 5. Verse must necessarily answer to the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 4th Verse and so in no wise doth or will suffer that the series of the speech be broken of as if the former in the 4th Verse were to be attributed to Paul the speaker and the latter part in the 5th Verse to Luke the Writer So then the words in the 5th Verse are the words of Paul who having before related and approved of Johns Doctrine and Baptisme as true and Evangelicall doth here also relate and approve of the peoples hearing his Doctrine and receiving his Baptisme and so laying his hands upon the 12. Disciples here present baptised after Johns baptisme but not by John as who deceased long before 30. or 40. years In Judea a place also far distant from this City of Ephesus where these twelve Disciples dwelt baptised in all likelyhood of some of Johns Disciples And the gifts following thereupon which before Paul signified by the name of the Spirit and of which he had questioned them He confirmed and established the Ephesine Church And so to shew yet farther that Beza and the other above named are intepreters after Lukes heart as I said see again Luke himself in Acts 1.6 and 7. verses where both are joyned together in like manner by the same Particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea moreover if Paul had here baptised these 12. Disciples of Ephesus sure he would have made mention of it in the 1 Cor. 1.13 14 c. where of set purpose he reckoned up such as were baptised by him not only at Corinth but else where Yea and writing from Ephesus to Corinth he doth not mention them amongst the rest whom if he had baptised he surely would and should I wish indeed that those of our excellently Learned Translators who took this part of the Acts of the Apostles in hand had expressed the meaning thereof in some playner and more perspicuous English and had made it plain upon the Tables Verse or Margin that he might have run that readeth it and he that readeth it might have seen and understood that they who heard John when living and beleeved his Doctrine were here spoken of to have been Baptised of him and not the 12. Disciples of Ephesus hearing Paul to have been baptised of him as the words now read seem to shew which occasioned though through their ignorance and wilfulness this error of Rebaptising But I will not be so presumptuous as to proscribe or prescribe any thing here But it may be you and the Anabaptists who comply with the Papists in divers other of their Tenets do also hold with them in this also that Johns baptisme was much different from Christs baptisme and not a like effectuall like as you say the same of our baptising of Children that it is invalid and contrary to Christs baptisme and to therefore dream stlll of Pauls rebaptising these 12. Disciples baptised of John that so you may ground your dipping again of grown persons baptised before of us I must in a word tell you That John his and Christ his baptisme differ not in the nature and substance which
and constant custom of the Primitive and the succeeding Churches throughout the several ages to Baptize the Children of believing Parents in their Infancy then it ought to be so still continued accustomed and practised This Warrant may be Reasoned out of the word or the Reason warranted out of Matth. 19.4.9 where Christ in case of a point of difference about divorce himself argueth and reasoneth from the Ancient times and the beginning of the Church of God So out of 1 Cor. 11.16 if any man seem to be Contentious we have no such Custom neither the Churches of God Where you and I may see the case there and here to be much alike The Corinthians had got up a fashion of their mens praying covered in their long Hair and their women praying uncovered in their shorn Hair you likewise have taken up a practice of baptizing onely believers when grown persons they make profession and have shut out Infants from their right to the Seal of Baptism being Covenanters with their Parents Saint Paul refuteth that their fashion by divers arguments drawn from the headship of man over the woman from the dishonouring of the head from the shamesulness and the uncomeliness of it from the Presence of the Angels from the light of nature five good and sound arguments and when he perceived for all those that they were contentious and quarrelsome with him about and for their fashion He clappeth upon them as his last argument this taken from the Churches of God that have been before us In like manner I have refelled your Practice by sundry Warrants and Reasons raysed out of the word from such Infants some of them having the spirit and faith in some degrees from their being in the same Holy Covenant of Grace with their Parents from the proportion and succession of Baptism unto Circumcision from Baptisme's being a remedy against Original sin especially from Infants capableness of the ends effects and benefits of Baptism five good and warrantable reasons out of the word and supposing for all this you will not be conquered though overcome but will still strive and contend contrary to 2 Tim. 2.24 Now I urge upon you in the last place this Reason which is the Custom of the Church both Modern we have such a Custom of Baptizing Infants of Believing Patents and we have no Custom approved or General of Baptizing onely Grown Believers As also Ancient Neither the Churches of God have had any such For so though Saint Paul argue N gatively onely the Reason is of as much force and weight affirmatively and the Custom of the Ancient and Modern Church's is good and pleadable both against the New Lights of late scismatical Innovators as also for the old Light of former and present Orthodex Professours As for the Negative the Not or No Custom Primitive and practice Apostolieal of Baptizing again at their growth upon Confession of Faith such as had been Baptized before in their Infancy I do reserve it for at other Place your Dipping Pond of which I shall speak at last onely here I shall bring in the Affirmative That the Ancient Prinritive Churchès succeeding the Apostles what the Apostles themselve did do and practied shall hereafter soon follow did hold and practice the Baptizing of Infants And though I think it will but disturb your Brain and cause you to stop your Nostrils and Mouth who small no sweet Savour or Odour of Antiquity as being one of the New Sent or unsent rather yet notwichstanding I shall and relate the Dictates of some of the Ancient Apostles succeeding Pastors and Fathers of the Church of old and I will do it for others sake who are Lovers of Antiquity but I will do it in English for your sake whom I am Instructing who are no lover of Languages more than you can speak I know you will not take this General Custom and Practice of the Church upon my bare word and present Assertion nor do I desire you should Therefore Remember the dayes of old consider the years of many Generations ask thy Father and he will shew thee thy Elders and they will tell thee ask now of the dayes that are past which were before wheâ—â—er there hath been any such thing as the Baptizing of Infants of Believers You shall readily find the same attested by the Reverend Fathers of the Church the Bishops and Doctors of the dayes of old and years of former Generations to have been so to be the Custom and Practice In a matter of Fact or Practice one Good and Creditable witness is sufficient and that I am sure I have Saint Augustine I mean not onely for the General Practice of Infant Baptism in his dayes and those present tim 's wherein he lived as might easily be shewed our of his Books of Original Sin Chap. 40. Third Book of the Merit of Sin and Remission Chap. 9. Third Book against Julian fourth Book of Baprism against the Donatists c. But also for the former and praeceding Churches up to the Primitive dayes For so Augustine who lived in the year after the Nativity of Christ 39â— and was Presbyter first and after Bishop of Hippo saith thus in his third Epistle to Volusian The Custom of the Mother Church in Baptizing little ones is in no wise to be despised not to be thought needless and were not to be believed but that it was as Apostolicall Tradition This is a very full and clear evidence of an Ecclesiastical Custom an Apostolical Tradition whether written or unwritten that infringeth it not according to that of the Apostle 2 Thest 2.15 hold the Traditons which ye have been taught whether by word or Epistle not to be despised but believed Nor did Augustine utter this suddenly but advisedly and therefore upon second thoughts saith it over again and the more Resolutely in his 15. Sermon of the words of the Apostle Let no man saith he buz or whisper into our eares any Doctrine to the Contrary This Practice of Baptizing Ghildren The Church alwayes had this it hath this it alwayes held this it hath received from the Faith or fidelity of our Ancestors and this it keeps Constantly to the end Therefore doth the same Father so often and so much press this Argument The Churches Practice of Baptizing-Infants upon Pelagius and his followers who were Contemporary with Augustine holding Infants were not taken or tainted with original Corruption and Sin by propagation but only contracted the same by Imitation as in his 150 Epistle unto Sixtus in his second Book of Marriage and Concup 18. Chap. in his first Book against Crescon the Grammarian cap 30. in his fourth Book against the Donat. c. 23. in his sixth Book against Julian one of Pelagius his Schollars or his opinions Now if this had not been truly and undeniably The Custom and Practice of the Church even up to the first and Primitive times as Augustine affitmed Pelagius and his Disciples would soon have fallen foul upon
your mean drugs of Exposition with such high and extream Praises and Titles as if it were according to the minde of the Holy Ghost is not this to sound a loud trumpet before a poor alins given as the hypocrites do Matth. 6.3 Is not this one kinde of boasting of things without your measure 2 Cor. 10.15 and this one thing The minde of the Holy Ghost in this and that Scripture and peremptorily saying your Exposition to be according to the same this is that the Spirit indeed speaketh expresly that in the Latter days some shall be lovers of themselves proud boasters 2 Tim. 3 1 Tim. 4. and boasters of the Spirit having not the Spirit these be they who separate themselve as Jude telleth you now again verse 19. O the depth of the riches both of the knowledge and wisdome of God for who hath known the minde of the Lord Rom. 11.34 Behold the man who expounds according to the minde of the Holy Ghost in that Scripture at leastwise No Sir you do not you are confounded already who presume to be of the Council of the most High and of the minde of the Holy Ghost see how you falter and stagger at the first step and setting out to your Exposition for the meek will he guide in judgement and the meek will he teach his way Psal 25.9 God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble James 4.6 for you chop and change the words of the Holy Ghost whose own words do best express its own minde turning holy as you should write it but that you are so holly or hollow into clean as if you would teach the Spirit of God the words it should use and then indeed you may the sooner know the minde of the Spirit speaking in your own words Sir are you like to expound this Text according to the mind of the Holy Spirit who refuse the words of the Spirit by which it signified its minde and bring and add another word which expresseth your minde better besides that in the ciring the words of the Spirit you twice add Believing believing as if you would teach the Spirit to express its minde more fully and plainly than of himself he doth putting words into his mouth which he left out though I acknowledge the words aee twice necessarily implied But I would you could once teach your self to write English and speak sense your self so far are you from expounding according to the minde or words of the Holy Ghost Look agian upon what followeth of yours This Scripture is owne one of the main props that Mr. Wsinell buildeth his Infant Baptism upon gounding rom hence That children are holy because there their fatheâ— and there their mother are lawfully married for that is the Apostles meaning in this Text namely the holiness of the child or uncleanness of it according to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the marage marriage of the Parents and so the the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified by the believing husband or wife being lawfully marid married as the holy Ghost saith Vnto the pure all things are pure Titus 1.15 Rom. 14.20 and so an inpure impure or unbelieving wife or child is sanctified or pure to the pure or believing husband and so likewise the husband to the wife being lawfully maryed married or joyned together according to Gods Ordynance Ordinance or may of maryage Heb. 13.4 and so their children are holy or clean otherwise they ware were unholy or unthan or bastards and they themselves made whoremongers and adulterers whom God will judge First I pray Sir poine your two first lines and make your flops for the whole two Verses seem to relate Mr. Wyness opinion and grounding childrens holiness upon their father and mothers being lawfully married as if that were the Apostles meaning The which Mr. Wynell disclaimeth as his grounding or the Apostles meaning Seeing then it is your gounding and expounding put it into such words or dress it in such clothes that I may know it and you own it for your Child or child ish opinion whether it prove a legitimate or bastard for so I see you intend to make of the Apostles holy children only legitimates and of the unclean onely bastards And I am farther glad to see you are willing to look into any of our Writers and Books that treat of Infant-Baptism as here Mr. Wynell whose Treatise as I remember I sent either to you or to a friend to shew you and the rather because your Provincial Anabaptists like as the Provincial Jesuites do forbid unto their new Converts and old Catholiques as they call them the reading of our Protestant Books are cautious that our Oathodox Teactates come not into the hands and view of their Catechumen Proselytes It appears to me you have not so much as read Mr. Wynell about this Text so far are you from reading over his Book or not read so much as he wrote about it because you pass by his Exposition of it and his Reasons and your Answers to them and spend your time in drawing out of your self and your own bowels as a Spider those Cobweb-Consideration of your own spread out to catch Flyes that will come into them Well suppose it one of Mr. Wynell's main props or pillars he hath more besides and I thought that such a Sampson as you are would have laid hold on both or all the pillars of the house and pulled them down but instead of pulling down his you set up first a prop and pillar of your own by his and do interpret the Aposltes meaning of children being holy to be onely from a Matrimonial holiness as born in lawfull wedlock and so to be nothing else in a manner but a legitimation of birth And here you cite Rom. 4 20. which speaks of lawfulness and purity of meats to Believers and Titns 1.15 which speaks of faith purifying the heart and all things after to the pure and Heb. 13.4 which sheweth Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled all to what purpose forsooth to prove that the holiness spoken of children by the Apostle was meant of a legitimation of birth and the sanctification there mentioned of a Matrimonial sanctification were they not rather to this purpose to shew that a good memory and a good wit have not met in your head who shew your good memory to cite many Texts of Scripture but no good wit to apply them or to prove that out of them for which you bring them Next you infer it from the scope of the words For say you the words are part of an Answeare Answer to a Question put by the believing Corimhians Whether that they which were converted by the preaching of the Gospel might live with there their husbands or wives which were not converted Now the Apostle answer thus If the unbelieving husband or wife will dwell with the believing husband or wife is sanctified to or by the unbelieving husband or wife else ware your children