What connexion and inference it hath to make an Argument 1. For the proofe And first for that Mr T. doth but intimate in the words and others It is true that in the eighth Sermon upon the Words of the Apostle This a true saying and worthy of all acceptation c. put among Augustines workes in the tenth Tome are these Expressions Infantes sunt c. That is They are Infants but they are Christs Members they are Infants but they receive his Sacraments they are Infants but they are made partakers of his table that they may have life in themselves But * Censura patrum Rob. Cooke * Cens tom 10. Erasmus and they that put forth the Lovaine Edition * In that Edition Augustine name is not praefixed do doubt whether the 2.4 6.8 Sermon with many more of them there on the said words of the Apostles be Augustines or no. Secondly for that proof Mr T expresseth the first part of it is here out of Cyprian de lapsis quoted by August in Epist. 33. the second part is in his Examen out of Augustine in his 1 book of merit and remission of sin chap. 20. on the words Iohn 6.53 and Maldonat on Iohn 6. who confesseth that Innocentius the first Bishop of Rome held it necessary for Infants and that this opinion and practise continued about 600 years in the Church though it be now rejected by the R. Church in the Council of Trent Thus Mr T. Now we answer to these things in the Generall thus 1. That here is produced onely matter of fact but no rule so much as pretended out of any Scripture Councell or any Father for it by those that used it 2. That this fact was for about 150 years From Cyprian till Augustine very rare As before Cyprian Helvie from whom up to the last of the Apostles are neer 140 yeers I finde no mention of it at all in the best antiquity And for this reason it was rarely used because the Ancients upon Scriptures swaying them were all along so confident as we have heard that baptisme alone was as Ordinance fully sufficient to assure them of the salvation of Infants which caused the universality of practise of Infant-Baptisme all along in those times In particular 1. To Cyprian we say if this place be not interlined and corrupted with patches by others inserted as those books that are altogether accounted Cyprians are * So Revet Perkins Cooke Possevin and if in this silly story of a phantisied miracle unworthy of learned pious Cyprian ** The story in a word is That a mayden Infant being made by the Idol worshippers to suck in a little of a bit of bread sopped in wine left by them that had there sacrificed she being after brought by her mother to the communion the Deacon forcing into the Infant some of the Sacramentall wine she presently vomitted c. which is taken as a miracle to discover the sinne before unknown of her partaking of the Idol-sop Popish Pamelius indeed huggs this story to prove miracles since the Apostles and transubstantaition But for Protestants they maybe rather ashamed of it then own it this wine were given to the child not as aliment but as a Sacrament why was not the Sacramentall bread given to it too And if it could not sucke downe a crumme of that bread as it is said they gave it the idol-sop because it could not suck upon the flesh how is it said to receive the Lords Supper For it is said by the Apostle The bread that we break is the Communion of the body of Christ We leave this uncertain and simple Testimony of Infant Commuuion in Cyprians time Let us come secondly to Augustine letting passe his weaknesse in too credulous quoting that weake passage in Cyprian his rash asserting that the child received the Lords Supper and his in considerate application of it to warne persons of ripe yeeres of unworthy communicating whereas more fitly he might have inferred that it shewed what a sinfull humaine invention it was to force the wine of the Sacrament into an Infant I say letting passe these things in his 23. Ep. Let us consider what is alleadged out of him In his book of the merit and remission of sinnes Chap. 20. upon occasion of his alledging Iohn 6. To which we say 1. That Augustiue doth not speake of Infants receiving the Communion as the common Tenet of those times 2. He brings in some disputing against him that that place of Iohn 6.53 doth not belong to Infants 3. When Augustne weakly endeavours to pull that text to reach to Infants from the verb plural unlesse yes shall eat and that it must belong to children too or else to those only whom Christ there speakes and not to us also in following ages c. In the conclusion he sayth only this That flesh which was given or the life of the world was given for the life of LITTLE ONES and if they SHAL not eat the flesh of the sonne of man nor SHAL they have life speaking in the future tence or time As for Maldonat that Popish Calumniator I think it nor worth while to turne to him if I had him or to believe him if I read him If Innocentius the 1. Bishop of Rome so thought and sayd its wonder there were no letters or Epistles between him and his Coeve friend Augustine concerning this point too And that Boniface succeeding Innocent and was also in Augustines time did not mind Augustine of it nor Augustine alleadge Innocent to Boniface in his 23. Ep. to Boniface Augustine touching upon this very point and alleadging Cyprian for it in that Epistle Howsoever if the 600. yeeres of that opinion and practise were those next before the Council of Trent thâ—n the opinion and practise was rare and privat in Cyprian and Augustines time if the 600. yeeres must begin at Cyprian yee a or at Augustine and his Coeve Innocentius how is it averred that the Council of Trent first rejected it Sure it was a grosse thing in the opinion of all Orthodox Churches that the Council of Trent must reforme Thus of Mr T. his proofe that the error of Infant cummunicating went along with Infant-baptisme Now according to promise a word of the connexion and inference to make it an argument 1. We have proved Infant baptisme to be no error therefore it cannot beget an error in the Administration of the Holy Supper 2. The adjunct or companion cannot necessarily argue the badnesse of the subject or thing The Sunne shineing many men commit evil yet this doth not prove the badnesse of the Sunne-shine 3. The Sacraments are two things specifically different distanced by expresse rules that only selfe examiners may Communicate it s not said so of baptisme therefore they that give the Communion to Infants erre for want of eyes not for want of light distinguishing between Sacraments 4. Many errours for many hundreds of yeeres clave to
and alleadgeth them If it be not so much a necessity as to have witnesses also in the danger The Lord saith indeed forbid them not to come unto me let them come therefore when they grow up to youth c. So Tertullian in the aforesaid book concerning baptisme Upon which place Vossius * Thes Theolog Hist de Paedob saith thus We think that nothing is here denyed but onely the necessity of baptisme when there is no danger of death for that 's the meaning of those words What necessity if there be not so much necessity as c. but in no case did he deny that Infants might be baptized yea and if there be danger least afterwards they be not baptized its plain they ought to be baptized which we do not obscurely discern by that which Tertullian writeth in his booke of the soul and the 39. and 40. chapter and then recited the words which before we quoted and translated to you Thus Vossius Give us but leave to give you learned and pious Iunius his note too on this place of Tertullian and we shall have done with Tertullian The words of Iunius are these Tria hic distinctè proponit Auctor Notae Franc. Junii ad Tertul de Baptis c. that is The Author propunds here three things distinctly which being rightly understood the place is most holy 1. The CONDITION of persons to be baptized is that they be in Covenant whether they be of age or little children 2. DISPOSITION is when they beleeve and obey the Gospell and make profession 3. They are not accounted to be OF AGE which are in covenant for the little children of Godly men are in Covenant but who so professe the faith Therefore when he saith ESPECIALLY CONCERNING LITTLE CHILDREN that must needs be understood of the children of strangers or Forraigners not of the children of those that are in Covenant and so domestick or of the family of the Church as is confirmed by the following Aetiologie or GIVING THE CAVSE namely what necessity is there if there be not so much necessity as for witnesses or God-fathers and God-mothers c. For we know that the first invention of witnesses was for the children whose parents could not be accounted members of the Church Mr T. his objections after against Tertul are prevented here and further answered in the 14 chap. of our Animadversions at the word CYPRIAN in the Margin That this was the mind of these Authours Justin Martyr Irenaeus and Tertullian in this age next after the Apostles will further appear by the consent of the most approved Ancients that followed them in the next succeeding ages which we have thought most proper to defer to the next chapter of our Animadversions upon Mr T. his fifth Argument CHAP. XIIII THE fifth Argument That which in succeeding Ages in which it was in use Exercitat Argu. 4. § 17. The Argument from the wrong originall of Infant-Baptism confirmed against it was in force 1 as a Tradition not written 2 Out of imitation of Jewish Circumcision 3 Without universall practise 4 Together with the error of giving Infants the Lords supper and many other humane inventions under the name of Apostolicall traditions That is deservedly doubtfull But in some ages after the first from the Apostles the tenet and practise of Infant-Baptisme was in use 1 as a tradition not written as appears from Origen Hom. on Rom. 6. Of which book neverthelesse let me add the censure of Erasmus on the Homilies of Origen upon Leviticus But he that reads this work and the enarration of the Epistle to the Romans is uncertain whether he read Origen or Ruffinus And the testimony fetched from these books for Infant-Baptisme is so much the more to be suspected because Augustine Hierom c. rely so far as yet is manifest to me on no other testimony then of Cyprian and his fellow-Bishops in the Councell of which mention is made Epist 59. ad Fidum Secondly out of imitation of Jewish Circumcision as the doubt of Fidus in the 59. Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus intimates though there were also other reasons of Infant-baptisme as the opinion of the necessity of Baptisme to salvation and the greedinesse to increase the number of Christians and perhaps the imitation of heathenish lustration of little ones and some other Thirdly without universall practise for it is manifest that Constantine although borne of Helena his mother a Christian was not baptized till aged as Eusebius in the life of Constantine written by him The same is manifest from the booke of Confessions of Augustine concerning Augustine himselfe whose mother Monica was a Christian The things which may be drawne out of Theodoret Augustine and others concerning Theodosius Alipius Adeodatus and many others although my bookes and notes out of them are wanting to me by reason of the injury of the times unlesse I be deceived will evince that though in the Churches of those times little ones were baptized yet many were not baptized whose baptisme its likely the Church would sooner have dispatched if the opinion of Baptisme that now obtains had then obtained Fourthly together with the error of giving the Lords supper to Infants as is manifest out of the booke of Cyprian de lapsis and others And that many other Inventions of men under the name of Apostolicall tradition out of a wrong likeing of Judaism did then prevail as the Paschall solemnity c. is so obvious to him that reades Fathers and Ecclesiasticall Writers that no man will need proof Ergo. And in very deed as of old because the right of Infant-Baptisme seemed to be of so great moment against the Pelagian heresie and for the authority of the Councell under Cyprian the Councell of Milevis Augustine Hierom and others rather then for any solid argument out of Scripture in former ages Infant-baptisme prevailed so in this last age some moderne men seeme to imbrace this tenet of Infant-Baptisme out of horror of mind least they should go headlong into the pernicious errours of former Anabaptists and their madde furies or least they should seeme to desert the leading-men of the reformed Churches or move troubles in the Church rather then from perspicuous foundation in the Scriptures which they will thinke that I have not said as one that dreames who shall read what Robert Lord Brooke hath in the end of his Treatise concerning Episcopacy Daniel Rogers in his Treatise of Baptisme and others elsewhere We Answer Animadver 1. To the major Take away the captain or leading particular to wit A tradition not written and all the souldiary of the other particulars with the great Rear to wit Many other humane inventions are not strong enough to make a true major proposition For what if according to Mr T. his ad particular of Iewish that Baptisme be an imitation of the Iewish passing through the red sea 1 Cor. 10.1 c. And the Lords Supper an imitation of the
Iewish passeover 1 Cor. 5. and of the Iewish Manna and water out of the rock 1 Cor. 10.1 c is therefore all Baptism and is therefore the Lords Supper deservedly doubtfull whether they may be used Yea why doth Mr T. without any limitation call circumcision Iewish as if it had been meerly so when the Apostle calls it Rom. 4.11 The signes and seal of the righteousnesse of faith Note It had been too much for Mr T. to have called it meer Old Testament or ceremonious circumcision seeing it is the first seal of the covenant with Abraham which was Gospell being the main hinge upon which the New Testament moves in the main point of salvation by faith in Christ Act. 2. Rom. 4. Gal. 3. where the Apostles in sending us to Christ by faith urges Gods Covenant with Abraham Circumcision therefore annexed to the covenant must be in diverse respects of the same nature as under the notion of the first seal in regard of the spirituall signification inward sanctification and too in respect of application to teach that still the first Seal as now baptism is to be applyed as to the beleeving parents so to their Infant seed unlesse Mr T. could have all this while shewd us an exception And what if according to Mr T. his third particular of Not universall practise Moses neglected the circumcision of his child at the due time and circumcision was not exercised upon the Jews born in the wildernesse for 40 years and many parts of worship could not be used in the times of the Churches persecution but Churches and their worship were hid in corners as Revel 12. And we have not records to tell us what they did for many hundred of yeeres but intimations how they were abridged of their liberties Now doth this make any of these things doubtfull See Vossius Thes Theolet Histor De Paedobapt And our quotation after Ambros following No more doth the want of universall practise detract from the authority of administring baptism to beleevers Infants especially seeing the Pelagian faction and other Heresies before that so ancient and so over spreading the Christian world being also opposite to the baptism of Infants might be a great cause that it was not universally practized And it is no handsome Argument in the mouth of an Anabaptist to urge the Non-universall practise of Infant Baptism when many of their fellows have been the cause of it Nor is it enough to wave that we have said to these two particulars viz. the second and third by telling us there was an institution of Circumcision in scripture an institution of Baptisme of men and of the Lords Supper in the Scripture for so we have proved there is of Infant Baptisme and we may as well assert this in this our Answer as for the Anabaptists to begge the Question in the objection as if Infant-baptisme were not instituted in Scripture For the fourth particular with its great caetera namely That together with the baptisme of Infants some errour and many humane traditions have gone along in the company as giving Infants the Lords Supper c. It needs no long nor carefull answer For first we know that all the Ordinances of Christ have been for many hundreds of years for the generall daubed with many traditions and darkned with many errours by the Papists doctrines mixt with Legends Note Baptisme be-spitled greased with oyl brined with salt the wine of the Lords Supper mixt with water c. yet this doth not infer that therefore the Ordinances themselves are doubtfull 2. That though you Mr T. Vltrò nos provocasti have voluntarily provoked us here to rip up all the abhominable opinions and dangerous errours and practises that have in all ages accompanied the opinion of Anabaptisme and antipaedobaptisme out of Mr Bullinger Sleidens Commentaries in his 5. and 10. book Lambertus Hortensius of the Anabaptiss of the Low Countries Iohn Gastius of the Anabaptists of Zuitzerland Melancthon Ch. de Nielles Pontanus Osiander c. * All which will more then furnish the Reader with a full answer to the 2 part of Mr T. his EXAMEN the title or sum whereof is set down by Mr T. That Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church or Common-wealth which Authors aforesaid have too many sad instances of both we forbear to name them as having no delight in Catalogues of sins Yet if we should do so you would not take that for a proof of the doubtfulnesse of Anabaptisme or Antipaedobaptisme you would say we did rather endeavour to disgrace it then to confute it as it is your complaint against Mr M. in your first Section of the second part of your EXAMEN why then do you here labour to dazle the eyes of men against the Lawfulnesse of baptizing beleevers children with an aspersion that some odde opinions and traditions have attended it 2. To Mr T. his minor we answer according to the particulars he recites But in some ages saith he after the first from the Apostles the tenet and practise of Infant-Baptisme was in use first as a tradition not written But why doth Mr T. we wonder speak of some ages after the first 100 years from the Apostles For unlesse he could proove Infant-baptisme to be an unwritten tradition in the first age next after the Apostles all is to no purpose If it were not an unwritten tradition in that age it is not an unwritten one though all the ages following to the worlds end say so and swear it Nor do the words was in use help him For if it be not proved it was an unwritten tradition in the first age after the Apostles though it was not then in use this is nothing to make it then an unwritten tradition Now to the first particular wherein Mr T. saith Infant-Baptism was in use as an unwritten tradition in some ages after the first from the Apostles witnesse Origen First we will bring our proofes of antiquity to the contrary and then secondly answer to Mr T. his quotation of Origen 1 For proof out of Antiquity that Infant-Baptisme was not in use after the first age from the Apostles upon meer unwritten tradition we will take our Authours according to order of time 1 ORIGEN ORIGEN Flourished about the very beginning of the second Century or age after the first from the Apostles times For he was borne * So Butholcer out of Hieron in the first Age or 100 years after that of the Apostles about the yeare of Christ 186. And he being the Disciple of Clement in the 18 year of his age and about the year after Christ 204. opens his schoole ** Helvic ou◠of Euseb Therefore he could not be ignorant of the customes of the Apostles about Infant-Baptisme c. First his words in his fifth booke upon the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans are The Church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to give Baptisme also to
of the youngest and learnedst and most orthodox and pious knew well the last generation in which they lived His words are very considerable in his tenth book De Genes ad literarum cap. 23. The custome saith he of our Mother the Church in baptizing little children is by no means to be despised nor altogether to be reputed superfluous nor by all means to be beleeved but that it was an Apostolicall tradition Where he means by Apostolicall tradition the Apostles Doctrine delivered brought down to us in the book of the New Testament by tradition or handing of it from one generation to another So to be his meaning is plain 1. Because Augustine in his dispute against the DONATISTS for Infant-baptisme Li. 4. de Bap. cap. 21. prove it from the Scriptures 2. Because in his first book De pecc mer. remiss cap. 26. saith thus Some of the PELAGIANS do grant under some notion that little children are to be baptized who cannot go against the Authority of the universall Church which without all doubt was delivered to them by the Lord Christ and his Apostles 3. In his tenth Sermon of the words of the Apostle speaking of the Baptisme of little children saith let no man whisper unto you strange Doctrines This the Church alwayes had alwayes held This it received from the Faith or Faithfulnesse of our Ancienters And this it keeps with perseverance to the end 4. These things to be most truly spoken by Augustine we doe know saith Vossius by this that the Pelagians some of them durst not deny them For Augustine writes in his second Booke against Coelestius and Pelagius that Coelestius himselfe in a booke which he put forth at Rome confessed in these words Infants are baptized into remission of sinnes according to the rule of the universall Church and according to the SENTENCE OF THE GOSPEL But observe his cunning in what sence he meant that Infants were baptized into remission of sinnes to wit into future remission if they lived to commit actuall finnes and thereby stood in need of pardon not into present remission of sinnes whiles Infants as not standing in need of pardon or else they that is Pelagius Coelestius and their Sect said onely in words that Infants were baptized into remission of sinnes but thought otherwise in their Principles they held This is plaine out of the Affrican Councell held under Boniface and Celestinus in the 77. Canon whereof it is thus Item placuit qui parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat c. that is It pleaseth the Counsell that whosoever denieth that little ones newly borne from the mothers wombe are to bee baptized or saith that they are baptized into remission of sinnes but they contract or draw nothing of originall sinne from Adam which need to be expiated by the laver of Regeneration whence it followes that by them the forme of Baptisme into remission of sinnes is not truly but falsly understood let him be Anathema Thus the said Counsell By the playster made by this Counsell you may perceive the disease of Pelagius c. And in the Epistle of the Councell of Carthage Anno 416. Bin. to Innocentius which is word for word the 90. among Augustines Epistles there is this mentioned that Pelagius and Coelestius deny the Baptisme of Infants because say they Infants perished not neither is there in them that that needs salvation or to be redeemed with so great a price for as much as in them is nothing vitiated nothing is held captive under the power of the Divell neither is it read that bloud was powred out for them unto remission of sinnes Albeit Coelestius in his Booke hath already confessed in the Church of Carthage that Infants also are redeemed by the Baptisme of Christ And then to explaine this how many and how or in what manner confessed this with Coelestius the following words fitly serve But many who are represented to us to be or to have been their Disciples doe not cease to affirme these evills whereby they endeavour by all the craft they can to overthrow the Fundamentalls of the Christian Faith So that if Pelagius and Coelestius be corrected or if they say they never thought those things and deny those writings to be theirs what or how many-soever they be that are brought against them yet is there not whereby to convince them of a lye So the Epistle of the Councell at Carthage Mr. T. EXAMEN Sect. 8. But Mr. T. hath many things to say against Augustine in his EXAMEN That the Authority of Augustine was it which carried the baptisme of Infants in the following ages almost without controul as may appear out of Walafridus Strabo placed by Vsher at the yeer 840. who in his book De rebus Ecclesiasticis chap. 26. having said That in the first times the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given to them onely who were come to that integrity of minde and body that they could know and understand and what profit was to be gotten in baptisme what is to be confessed and beleeved what lastly is to be observed by them that are new born in Christ confirmes it by Augustins own confession of himself continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptized But afterwards Christians understanding Originall sinne c. Ne perirent parvulisi sine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur statuerunt cos baptizari in remissionem peccatorum quod et S. Augustinus in libro de bapismo parvulorum ostendit Africana testantur Concilia aliorum Patrum documenta quamplurima And then adds how God-fathers and God-mothers were invented and addes one superstitious and impious consequent on it in these wordes Non autem debet Pater vel mater de fonte suam suscipere sobolem vt sit discretio inter spiritalem generationem carnalem Quod si casu evenerit non habebunt carnalis copule deinceps adinvicem consortium qui in communi filio compaternitatis spiritale vinculum susceperant To which I adde that Petrus Cluniacensis placed by Vsher at the yeare 1150. writing to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis who denyed Baptisme of Infants sayes of him that he did reject the Authority of the Latine Doctors being himselfe a Latine ignorant of Greeke and after having said recurrit ergo ad scripturas therefore he runnes to the Scriptures he alleageth the examples in the New Testament of Christs curing of persons at the request of others to prove Infants Baptisme by and then addes Quid vos ad ista Ecce non de Augustino sed de Evangelio protuli cui cum maxime vos credere dicatis aut aliorum fide alios tandem posse salvari concedite aut de Evangelio esse quae posui si potestis negate From these passages I gather that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for paedo-baptisme the authority of Augustine and the Latine Doctors So Peter de Bruis and Henricus appealed to the Scriptures and the Greeke
Church Now the reason of Augustines authority was this the Pelagian heresie being generally condemned and Augustines workes being greatly esteemed as being the hammer of the Pelagians the following refuters of Pelagianisme Prosper Fulgentius c. the Councells that did condemne it as those of Carthage Arles Milevis c. did rest altogether on Augustines arguments and often on his words and Augustine in time was accounted one of the four Doctors of the Church esteemed like the four Evangelists so that his opinion was the rule of the Churches Judgement and the schools determination as to the great hurt of Gods Church Luther and others have been of late Now Augustine did very much insist on this Argument to prove originall sinne because Infanâ—s were baptized for remission of sinnes and therefore in the Councill of Milevis he was adjudged accursed that did deny it But for my part I value Augustines judgement just at so much as his proofs and reasons weigh which how light they are you may conceive August tom 1. Confess lib. 1. c. 11. Signabar signo crucisejus condiebar ejus sale jam inde ab utero matris meae quae multuâ—â— speravit in te And then follows how being young and falling sick he desired and his mother thought to have him baptized but upon his recovery it was deferred First In that whereas he makes it so Universall a tradition his owne baptisme not till above thirty though educated as a Christian by his mother Monica the Baptisme of his sonne Adeodatus at 15. of his friend Alipius if there were no more were enough to prove that this custome of baptizing infants was not so received as that the Church thought necessary that all children of Christians by profession should be baptized in their infancy And though I conceive with Grotius annot in Matth. 19.14 that baptisme of Infants was much more frequented and with greater opinion of necessity in Africa then in Asia or other parts of the world for saith he in the Councells you cannot finde ancienter mention of that custome then the Councell of Carthage Yet I doe very much question whether they did in Africa even in Augustines time baptize children except in danger of death or for the health of body or such like reason I do not finde that they held that Infants must be baptized out of such cases for it is cleare out of sundry of Augustines Tracts as particularly tract 11. in Johan that the order held of distinguishing the Catechumeni and baptized and the use of Catechizing afore baptisme still continued yea and a great while after insomuch that when Petrus Cluniacensis disputed against Peter de Bruis he said only that there had been none but Infants baptized for 300 yeares or almost 500 years in Gallia Spaine Germany Italy and all Europe and it seemes he denyed not the baptizing of growne persons in Asia still whence I collect that even in the Latine Church after Augustines dayes in sundry ages the baptizing of persons of growne age did continue as well as baptizing of infants till the great darkenesse that over-spred the Westerne Churches spoyled by Barbarous Nations destitute of learned men and ruled by ambitious and unlearned Popes when there were none to Catechize and therefore they baptized whole Countries upon the baptisme of the King of that Country though both Prince and people knew little or nothing of Christianity but were in respect of manners and knowledge Pagans still which hath been the great cause of the upholding of Papacie and corrupting of Christian Churches I meane this great corruption of baptizing making Christians giving Christendome as it is called afore ever persons were taught what Christianity was or if they were taught any thing it was onely the ceremonies and rites of the Church as they called them 2. You may conceive how light Augustine's judgement was Rivet tract de Patrum authâ—ritate c. 9. Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudic at Infantes sine badtismo morientes by considering the ground upon which Augustine held and urged the baptisme of Infants so vehemently which was as all know that read his workes the opinion he had That without baptism Infants must be damned by reason of originall sinne which is not taken away but by baptisme yea though he wanted baptisme out of necessity urging those places Joh. 3.5 Rom. 5.12 continually in his disputes against the Pelagians particularly tom 7. de natura gratia c. 8. And tom 2. ep 28. he saith Item quisquis dixerit quod in Christo vivificabuntur etiam parvuli qui sine Sacramenti ejus participatione de vita exeunt hic profecto contra Apostolicam praedicationem venit totam condemnat ecclesiam And in the close of the Epistle calls it robustissimam fundatissimam sidem qua Christi ecclesia nec parvulos homines recentissime natos a damnatione credit nisi per gratiam domini Christi quam in suis Sacramentis commendavit posse liberari And this Perkins in his Probleme proves was the opinion of Ambrose and many more And hence as Aquinas so Bellarmine proves baptisme of Infants from Joh. 3.5 And this hath been still the principall ground The ground that you go on that the covenant of grace belongs to beleevers and their seed I cannot find amongst the Ancients Yea as you may perceive out of Perkins in the place alleadged although Ambrose and Augustine in his 4. book de Baptismo contra Donatistas c. 22 yeilded that either Martyrdome or the desire of Baptisme might supply the defect of Baptisme and some of the School-men Biel Cajetan Gerson do allow the desire and prayer of parents for children in the wombe in stead of Baptisme Yet we find no remedy allowed by them but actuall baptisme for children borne into the world So strictly did Augustine and the Ancients urge the necessity of Baptisme for Infants born 3. You may consider that Augustine held a like necessity of Infants receiving the Lords supper from the words John 6.53 as is plainly expressed by him lib. 1. de peccat merit remis c. 20. And accordingly as in Cyprians tim the Communion was given to Infants as appears by the story which he relates of himselfe giving the Communion to an Infant in his book de lapsis mentioned by August epist 23. So it is confessed by Maldonat on Joh. 6. that Innocentius the first Bishop of Rome held it necessary for Infants and that this opinion and practise continued about 600 years in the Church though it be now rejected by the Romane Church in the Councell of Trent 4. You may consider that Augustine held such a certainty of obtaining regeneration by Baptisme that not onely he puts usually regeneration for Baptisme but also he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants though they that brought them did not bring them with that faith that they might be regenerated by spirituall grace to eternall life but because by Baptisme they thought to
illuminations and operations of both experimentally IN MEE So 2 Pet. 1.5 Giving all diligence add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in your faith or through your faith vertue that is that the rest of the graces may come in into faith or through faith into the soul or that vertue may be in faith As it is said Galathians 5 6. faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inwardly effectually working by love That is Faith is effectuall faith when true heart warming love is in it breaking forth in act Jam. 2. Mr Tombes doth know that virtutes connectuntur morall vertues are connexed much more when by a higher principle of the spirit they are made theologicall graces and he doth know that there are generall directive vertues justice and prudence as the eyes to all the rest as master veines to all the lesser And therefore all vertues are said to be knit together in prudence So all graces in faith If the understanding and the will be as some learned will the same faculty really and the soul infused by the concreation of God at once yet in order of working the act of understanding is first in nature So though all the graces bee but one habit infused at first at the same time yet faith in Christ is first as the Apostle setts it first in this 2 Pet. 1.5 in order of acting or of applying Christ for additionall infusion and augmentation of graces which is Peters businesse in hand And so faith adds vertue vertue comes into the soul in and through faith So Act. 4.12 There is no other name under heaven given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in men into men effectually or extant in the midst of men among men So 1 Cor. 7.15 But God hath called us mee and you Corinthiaens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in peace into peace setled us in a state of inward peace So Math. 17.12 Elijah is already come that is John Baptist and you have done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in him whatsoeuer yee would you have have chopped the axe into his neck you have exercised your cruelty upon him So lastly Act. 7.44 The Tabernacle of witnesse was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Congregation or Church of our fathers in the wildernesse As they then are said to be a Church v. 38. 2 We answer to Mr Tombes his assertion upon these instances that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be rendred or better rendred To the wife in the dative case it disadvantageth us nothing in the meaning of this text which before we have asserted But helps us to Mr Tombes his confession to agree with us now contrary to his former struggle in this that the unbeleeving husband is not any how sanctified in himselfe or to himselfe by the beleeving wife but is sanctified onely to her And therefore is not sanctified from any thing common to both But sanctified to her quâ beleever as shee is a beleever and opposite to his condition of unbeliefe and therefore her faith hath the onely stroke under Christ and his Spirit to sanctifie the unbeleeving husband as sanctifying is here meant Thus we have wearyed our selves and perhaps the reader in a long answer to a large argument Yet in some sence Non suns long a quibus nihil est quod demere possis The rest which Mr Tombes speakes to this argument is built upon this as to be granted as he saith that matrimoniall holines must needs be here meant which we cannot grant but can overthrow and we hope have so done though we have not said all that may be said Only one thing Mr T. adds which is not founded upon his imagined supposition Namely whereas Beza saith Mr T. inferrs that if matrimoniall holynesse should be the sence of this place the Apostle should draw an argument from civill lawes to pacifie conscience Mr Tombes answers that the Apostle using his Apostolicall authority resolves the doubt in this chapter and teacheth that according to Gods law and Christs precept the marriage is not dissolved by the infidelity of either yoke-fellow c. To which we reply that the Corinthians could not scruple about not be ignorant of that which for many ages was notoriously divulged throughout the Gentile World by their civill lawes They knew well enough who were adulterers and formicators who not by their politicke lawes But their scruple is whether conjugall companying with an unbeleever did not spiritually pollute the beleever In this the civill or politick lawes of men were silent and could not resolve it And the rules of civill marriage could not satisfie it being matter of faith CHAP. VII THe Argument from Mat. 19.15 Mar. 10.14.16 Luke 18.15 16 17. may be formed in divers manners Exercitat First thus S. 6. The Arguments from Mat. 19.15 for Infant-Baptism examined They are to be buptized whom Christ commands to be brought to him being moved with indignation towards his disciples that repelled them But Christ commands Infants to be brought to him Ergo. That this Argument may be examined it is to be considered 1. Who they were that brought these children 2. What little children they were that were brought 3. Upon what motives 4. To what end 5. What time 6. In what place they brought them 7. For what cause the Apostles did repell them 8. For what cause Christ being angry with the Apostles commanded them to be brought In many of these we have scarce any thing beside conjectures which we may follow neither have I leisure or books to look into all things which Commentators have discoursed concerning these heads As for the 1 it is supposed that the bringers were either parents or other beleevers who at lest wished well to the little children which is probable from the end for which they brought them to wit that he might blesse them and pray for them for this sheweth faith and love As for the second it is probable they were children of Iews because this was done in the coasts of Iudea Mat. 19.1 Mar. 10.1 But whether the parents of the children beleeved in Christ or otherwise is not manifest As for the third concerning the motive there is little certain whether it were upon the sight or hearing of that which Christ did Mat. 18.2 or from a custome among the Iews of seeking the blessing of Prophets and holy men for their little ones as Rebekah for Iacob Ioseph for his sons or from the fame of things done upon the prayers of Christ or an instinct from God that occasion might be given of teaching the things that Christ taught upon this matter or some other motive As for the fourth the end is expressed by Matthew that he might put on hands and pray by Mark and Luke that he might touch them which tends to impart a blessing As for the fifth Matthew points at the time by the particle then and both Mark and Matthew put it after the dissertation with the Pharisees concerning divorce and the answer to the Disciples exception which Mark
as he saith having been formerly larger I say who knows but Mr. T. and Mr. D. formerly have so thought and so done themselves or at least have not professed against it which now they dislike in others Therefore let me offer to Mr. T. and Mr. D. and others of their judgement these three considerations First who that hath eyes as they Revel 4. as well within as without may not arreign himself guilty of this encroachment of extending his practise beyond the rule In many practises he throws open all fences and turns them into common But if he be questioned by the weakest disputant he cannot he dares not justifie himself in his sins but confesseth his way is butted there and bounded here and all the rest trespasse against the line he ought to walk by Secondly who is that professor especially a Minister living in this Summer of the Gospel at this time of the assent of Reformation to our Pole that forgets how in the dark and stormy Winter he saw lesse and stumbled more Even many of the Antipaedobaptists whom we own as brethren if they count Non-baptizing of beleevers children a peece of further Reformation a spark of clearer light must of necessitie confesse that not long since they thought not they did not so why then should we insult over our brethrens failing or taunt them for setting neerer their meridian closer to the rule that instead of baptizing all children they now state the question that onely believers children ought to be baptized unlesse in some speciall cases of which after Thirdly though meerly that second nature custome and that whirlwinde of persecution did precipitate many of later times to baptize all Protestant professors children confessing Christ to be come in the flesh and justification to be rooted in his righteousnesse alone yet all Ministers did not the same upon the same principles But 1. They knew that very anciently as appears by Tertullian living ann Dom. 195. which was not long after St. John Helvic This Tertullian being alledged in this question by H.D. the Churches did not baptize the children of unbeleevers out of the Church without Sponsores or Susceptores undertakers which we call Witnesses who engaged themselves as parents to look to the Christian education of such children called Godfathers as if fathers under God or for godlinesse to see them trained up in sound Religion Tertullians words in his Treatise de Baptismo cap. 18. are these Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio baptismi utilior praecipue tamen circa parvulos Quid enim necesse est si non tamnecesse sponsores etiam periculo ingeri On which words Junius his note is this Tria hic distincti proponit Auctor quae si rectè intelligantur locus est sanctissimus Conditio personarum baptizandarum est quod sint in faedere sive grandiores sive parvuli Dispositio est quòd credant obsequantur Evangelio profiteanturque Aetate non qui sunt in faedere nam parvuli piorum liberi in faedere sunt sed qui profitentur fidem recognosci solent Quum itaque dicit praecipue tamen circa parvulos id de extraneorum non de faederatorum domesticorumque liberis opus est intelligi ut aetiologia sequente confirmatur Illud autem sr non tam necesse etiam sine injuriâ auctoris abesse potest Not to spend time in construing all this we now onely give you the summe of both in the point now in hand for we shall more largely speak to every particular afterwards That which they both say concerning witnesses to children that in these ancient times they were used for children whose parents were without and not of the faith not of the Church We speak not for the using of witnesses or godfathers c. in baptizing children as the wont was among us But Secondly that this ancient custome as ancient at least as Tertullian might possibly have some respect to the Scripture Gen. 17. according to Mr. Cottons observation His book of the way of the Churche in N. England pag. 115. Baptisme saith he may orderly be administred to the children of such parents as have professed their faith and repentance before the Church Or where either of the parents have made such profession Or it may be considered also whether the children may not be baptized where either the grandfather or grandmother have made such profession and are still living to undertake for the Christian education of the childe For it may be conceived where there is a stipulation of the covenant on Gods part and a restipulation on mans part So M. Grcenham also See his works where he saith the children of unbeleeving parents are within the covenant by virtue of their believing grandfathers Or else how is God the God of their seed to shew mercy to thousands of generations of them that love him there may be an obligation of the covenant on both parts Gen. 17.7 Or if these fail what hindereth but that if the parents will resigne their Infant to be educated in the house of any godly member of the Church the childe may be lawfully baptized in the right of its houshold governor according to the proportion of the Law Gen. 17 12 13. So far Mr. Cotton both his judgement and his grounds Now in imitation of this last clause in all likelihood were Witnesses used though abusively in baptizing the children of some unbelievers and strangers from the Church yet therefore we have not such cause to trample upon any of our brethren about their error in baptizing too many Infants seeing they erred with some antiquitie and some pretence of Scripture before they saw this light for which God must be glorified and not man prided The last thing Mr. T. objects in this Argument on Matth. 28.19 is that if this place doth not exclude all Infants from Baptisme then nor doth 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat exclude Infants from the Lords Supper saying by the like elusion that the speech of the Apostle is not exclusive Yea verily saith Mr. T. neither will the Argument be of force from the institution of the Supper Matth. 26.26 27. that believers onely are to be admitted to the Lords Supper We answer And first to that comparison of 1 Cor. 11.28 with Matth. 28.19 we reply two things First that there is expressed in 1 Cor. 11. an universall determinating terme singling out all communicants man by man that they must be able to examine themselves before they eat But there is no such determinating word about Baptisine in Matth. 28.19 For first we have already in severall places of our Animadversions shewed that there is no certaintie at all that the Greek word here must signifie to-disciple or make-disciples For first most learned men render it no more but teach And so the Syriack and Arabick Translations * In the best Translations of the French
afore in our Reply to Mr. T. his 13. Sect. touching the Argument of the failing of the Churches succession in the 9. Chap. of our Animadversions And we adde now that both he and Walaf Strabo speak as if they had not been acquainted with Antiquitie in this point as will appear by and by from that we shall be able to quote 2 To Walafridus Strabo who is but of yesterday in comparison by Mr. T. his confession to barely assert against higher approved Antiquitie We answer that if Mr. T. would but have gone on in the place he quoted out of the 26. Chap. of that Wal. Strabo de Rebus Ecclesiasticis and translated a line or two further the world might have better seen what an acurat Antiquarie that Strabo was We will therefore translate onward immediately where Mr. T. left For the venerable Father Augustine saith W. Strabo reports of himself in his books of his Confessions that he continued Catechumenus a catechised person almost to the twenty fift yeer of his age namely to that intent that by this delay of time he being well learned in every particular he might be led by his own free accord to choose that which he liked Thus Walaf Strabo Upon which Ger. Joh. Vossius his observation is this Thus far Walafridus saith Vossius in whose words instead of the twenty fift yeer as he is in printed copies Bibl. p. p. T. 6. Ed. 2. and cited of learned men Joseph vice com observ Eccles lib. 2. cap. 1. c. we ought to read the thirty fift yeer For Augustine as appears by his books of his Confessions was converted in the thirty first yeer of his age For the two yeers following he continued under catechising in which time he wrote against the Academici and wrote his Soliloquies At thirty foure yeers old he was baptized by Ambrose at Midain which declare with how weak an argument Walafridus doth contend Thus far Ger. J. Vossius 3 To Mr. T. his manner of quoting Vossius as if Vossius added another testimonie to that of L. Vives out of Walaf Strabo against Infant-baptisme We answer Mr. T. doth but hereby neatly occasion if not cause the unlearned to fall into a mistake as if Vossius were against Infant-Baptisme when as he is altogether for it with many Arguments wherein is shewed much divine learning He that hath but Latine may read them at large Ger. Joh. Voss Thes Theolog. Histor Disput de Paedobapt Thes 3. c. 4 Mr. T. intimating a referring himself in this cause of the ancientnesse of Infant-baptisme to Antiquitie Councils Ecclesiasticall Writers c. doth but reach down a rod for his own opinion and a confutation of his minor Proposition he pretended to prove by Antiquitie For the best antiquitie of the Fathers c. are for us against Mr. T. that Infant-baptisme was in the next Age to the Apostles and so downwards which to follow Mr. T. in his own we are forced to produce and to refell Mr. T. and Mr. D. exceptions against some of them as alledged by some of us that we may leave things clear as we go 1 Justin Martyr * Justin Maryr saith Bucholcerus apologized for the Christians in the yeer 141 after Christs birth And was converted to Christianity before that in the yeer after Christs birth 130. saith Helvious He was a professor of Philosophy before his conversion and therefore in all likelihood was at least 20. yeers old if not 30 at his conversion and so lived very neer the time of John the Apostle who dyed not till about Ann. 200 after the birth of Christ And therefore Justin Martyr muâ—â— needs know the customes in the Apostles dayes in his books unquestionably his in some things we cast our eye upon for we had not time now to read over Pamphlets of this question much lesse volumnes seems to hint something towards Infant-baptisme in his Dialogue Cum Tryph. Jud Have ye not read that that soul should be cut off from his genoration which shall not be circumcised the eighth day And this is equally established concerning strangers or those bought with money This Covenant therefore or Testament you despising you neither have any regard of the Commandments following and then adjoynes There is now need of another circumcision c. And in his 2 Apol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After washing in that manner we bring him that hath believed and is joyned to us unto the biethren as they are called where they are gathered together and make prayers and supplications in common both for them selves and for him that hath been eluminated that is baptized c. Again in his Dialog cum Tryphone he opposeth baptisme with water to baptizing with sin but we are baptized with sin when children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again one in a Treatise which goes under the name of Justin Martyr namely in the Questions to the orthodox Question and Answer 56. disputes the different condition of children dying baptized EXAMEN Perk. prepara to the Demonstrat of the Problem Rivet Crit. Sacer. R. Cook of Leeds Censur patrum Exercit. unbaptized Therefore children were baptized in his time Mr. T. in his Examen objecteth that it is proved by Mr. Perkins by Rivet and by Cook that the Quest ad orthodox were not Justin Martyrs for as much as they mention not onely Irenaeus but also Origen and the Manichees We answer Although we will not peremptorily pronounce that those Questions and Answers ad Orthodoxos were Justin Martyrs neverthelesse it doth not yet appear to us as infallibly proved by Mr. T. his Arguments that those Quest ad Orthodox were none of his 1. For the mention of the Manichees there is a mistake The place where the Manichees are mentioned is not affirmed by divers learned men * Cook cens patr Rivet Crit. Sacer. Possevin App. to be in the Questions to the orthodox but in Quaestiouib Responsionib ad Graecos there we find them often mentioned ** Resp ad Qu. primam c. often Perk. For mention of the Manichees in the Questions ad Orthodoxos once in some copies in Quaest 127. Mr. T. hath it but out of one Author And very likely it was thrust in to the Quest ad orthod in latter times by the Scribes For the sence is perfect without it And the inserting is but in manner of a quotation to explain how in those times Justin Martyr met with some opinions then arising which in after-times grew infamously famous got an head and a Name of Manicheisme which being known to the Scribes of latter times they might put in the name Maniche as answerable to the thing disputed and for the information of the Reader Who that is a Scholar doth not know that Marginall notes on books at last have crept into the Text Many instances might be given of books of many sorts So then this reason is not a certain evincing Argument that the Qu. ad orthod are not
are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their Baptisme by that faith of those that bring them to Baptisme So Mr. T. â—is translat and then Mr. T. makes these observations upon it 1 That In those times they did not baptize Infants upon Mr. Marshals ground namely upon the Covenant of Grace made to them and their Infants 2 But they baptized them because they thought the not-baptized should not obtein good things at the resurrection but the baptized should 3 That those baptized Infants obteined those good things by reason of the faith of the bringers what ever the parents were 4 That therefore they baptized the children of unbeleevers as well as of beleevers if they were brought Mr. T. hoping by this translation and these Notes to bring the Author and his words into disgrace as he himself hints it to us But we answer in generall that Mr. T. hath likewise quoted Authors and among them even his much esteemed Ludovicus Vives that have had their harsh expressions and worse as before we have noted 2. The intent and manner of quoting the Quest. to the orthodox was onely to testifie that the baptisme of Infants was a known custome in those times In particular we answer first to his first observation that the said 56. Question was not urged by my self or Mr. T. to prove baptisme of Infants upon the ground of the Covenant But the question being whether in point of Fact the Churches used anciently to baptize Infants to that the quotation of those Questions named Justin Martyrs was alledged and to that it serveth fitly and fully For he was a very ancient Author in the judgement of divers learned men Sylburgius thinks that he was a Justin that might write about the time of Theodoret. But Photius thinks that it might be Iustin Martyr interlined by some other Iustin or other after as Ruffinus dealt by Origen as Mr. T. confesseth To Mr. T. second observation we answer That as we that are believers as it is in the Answer to that 56. Question cannot applaud nor comfort our selves in a willing neglect of baptizing our children according to the Gospel institution as we now stand to maintain so doubtlesse we are to expect good things on Gods part to our children according to the intent of Baptisme We find it so on earth in their comfortable application of baptisme at ripe yeers and why not then to beleeve the fruit of it in heaven if they dye in childhood Why may not Baptisme as well comfort the supposed Iustin Martyr and us as Circumcision did the Patriarks concerning their childrens receiving the first seal This expression in this 56. Question and Answer is esteemed by Grotius on Matth. 19.14 whom Mr. T. so oft quotes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To his third observation we answer That there is no such clause or intimation in the said place of the 56. Quest. ad orthodox as Mr. T. here inserts namely what ever the parents be The contrary is more probable the Author calling the bringers of the Infants beleevers And who so likely to bring the children as the parents And therefore the parents here most probably are those believers And whereas Mr. T. renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy worthy of good things he might by warrant from the Gospel * As Matth. 10.11 enquire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is fit or meet that is to receive you as it is expounded in v. 14. have rendred it by a more orthodox and fit terme viz. meet or fit And lastly it being more probable then any thing Mr. T. can bring to the contrary that the children were brought to baptisme by their beleeving parents and so made meet for good things as the fruit of it let the Reader judge whether all this doth not imply that respect here might be had to the Covenant of grace as the ground of baptizing children which Mr. T. but now so peremptorily denyed as if it were infallibly contrary to the Text of the Author To his fourth observation we need say no more but that Mr. T. speaks it without all warrant or such probability from the text of the Author as there is in it to the contrary Now let the world judge whether the words of the Author considering his time are so vain or so impertinent as Mr. T. would meke them had they been alledged in full and beyond that the quotation extended to Thus for Justin Martyr Next we come to Irenaeus IRENAEVS who lived in the same century namely in the next age to the Apostles and not at the last end of that age neither For Bucholcerus one of the most approved Chronologers by Vsher puts him in the yeer after Christ 178. And Helvicus puts him higher namely in the yeer Testis D. H. secum enutritus 170. And both of them put him down as Bishop at that time of Lyons saith Bucholcerus and therefore was famous no doubt divers yeers afore and an observer of the customes of the Churches Having this advantage for that purpose that he was the Scholar of Polycarp as Polycarp was Scholar or disciple to some of the Apostles as divers Chronologers tell us That which Irenaeus hath to our purpose in the point in hand is in his 2 Book 39. Chap. about the middle His words are these Magister ergo existens c. that is Therefore being a teaching Master he had also the age of such a Master not refusing or going beyond a man nor dissolving the law of humane kind in himself but sanctifying every age by that similitude that was in him to it For he came to save all men by himself All I say who by him are BORN-AGAIN unto or into God INFANTS and LITTLE-ONES boyes and young men and elder men Therefore he went through every age and was made an Infant to Infants sanctifying Infants Among little ones a little one sanctifying them that have this age being also made an example to them of pietie and justice or righteousnesse and subjection Among young men being made a young man and sanctifying them to the Lord so also an elder to the elder that he might be a perfect teaching master not onely according to the exposition of truth but also according to age sanctifying the elder being made also an example to them And then he went also unto death that he might be the first-born from the dead holding the primacy in all things c. So Irenaeus Whom we have translated above and beneath the place we are to use that there might be the lesse exception by any that they could not see the coherence and scope of the place The words we stand upon in which Irenaeus intimates the baptisme of Infants in that his time next after the Apostles are All I say who by him are BORN AGAIN unto or into God or according to God INFANTS and LITTLE ONES c. The word Renascuntur that is regenerated or new-born or born again
objects that if we read the passages themselves we cite EXAMEN and consider how they are brought in and how plain the expressions are against the Pelagians we would quickly conceive that those passages were put in after the Pelagian heresie was confuted by Hieronimus and Augustin who often tells us that the fathers afore that controversie arose did not speak plainly against the Pelagians And of all others Origen is most taxed as Pelagianizing We answer Animadver First for our parts we have read the places wee quote out of Origen with the coherence of the preceding and succeeding words as Mr T. may perceive by our touches of observations on the places Some hints there are wee confesse against some peice of Pelagianisme which might be conceived by some few in his time which others in after ages might confute plainly when borne named and grown up to a sturdy fellow Secondly for Origen to hint in some places against Pelagianism in others to Pelagianize a little is not such a contradiction as is not found in divers fathers that wrote much and struggled with contrary Errours as Augustin c. we thinke Mr T. himself clasheth sometimes against himselfe Thirdly however Origen in all the places constat sibi is the same man for Baptisme of Infants But Mr T. objects further that Vossius saith EXAMEN For Origen wee will the lesse contend because what we cited out of him is not extant in Greek Wee answer Animadver 1 Then we were best cast away almost all worthy Irenaeus because wee have but a little peice of him in Greek 2 That Mr T. quoted out of Origen for his turn is not extant in greek 3 Vossius shall heal the wound Mr T. gives by the hand of Vossius First saith Vossius Although some thinke Origens Commentaries on Levit. to be Cyrills yet they savour of Origens phrase and mistakes Secondly saith Voss You may read gemina this and his 14. Homilies on Luke as Twinnes that is they both speake alike to the same purpose of Infant-Baptisme which place on Luke Mr T. excepts not against Lastly EXAMEN Mr T objects that if Origens testimony be accepted yet he calls Infant-baptisme a Tradition and an Observation of the Church To this we have sufficiently answered a little afore in our quotations of those three places out of Origen Animadver that ORIGEN cannot mean unwritten Tradition or meer Custome See more after at our quotation of Augustin in which you have a full answer to Mr T. his note out of Aug. l. 10. c. 23. De Genesi The next witnesse is CYPRIAN CYPRIAN who flourished about the 248. yeare after Christ * Helvic and so also was in the second century 100 years or age after the first from the Apostles according to Mr T. his language others ** Bucholc put him higher to wit about 222. after Christ His testimony as Vossius notes for Infant-Baptisme in his time and higher is beyond all exception His words in his Epistle to Fidus in his third book and eighth Epistle * Alias Ep. 59. are these As concerning the cause of Infants which thou saidest ought not to be baptized being within the second or third day of their birth and that the law of ancient Circumcision ought to be regarded so that thou shouldest not think that one born should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day it seemed far otherwise to all in our councell We all of us that is in a Councell of 66 Bishops have judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denyed to no son of man or to none born of men And by and by after he saith There is among all whether Infants or those that are elder one equality of the divine gift And a little after that he addes For as God is no excepter of persons so nor of Ages seeing that he holds forth himselfe with an equall poysed evennesse Parem as some read a like patrem as others read a father to all for the attaining celestiall grace And a few lines after he hath these words If remission of sins be given to them that have more greivously sinned against God when afterward they have beleeved and so none of them is kept back from Baptisme and grace how much rather ought not an Infant to be prohibited and kept from baptisme who being lately born hath not sinned at all but as born of Adam according to the flesh he contracted the contagion of ancient death in his first nativity And therefore my dear brother this was our judgement in the Councell That from baptisme and the grace of God who is mercifull and bountifull and pittifull to all no man ought to be debarred So with much more Cyprian repeated by him again tom 2. l. de lapsis This Epist of Cypr. to Fidus is a Famous place saith Goulartius concerning the Baptisme of Infants against the Anabaptists And so we finde it accounted among the pious and Learned Ancients by their frequent and respective quotation of it * Cyril or Johannes Hierosolymit Catechis Mystag 1. Greg. Naz. Orat 3. in sanctum lavacrum Chrys Hom. ad Neâ—phyt Hom. in Gen. in Ps Ambros in Luc. Hierom. sub â—inem l. 3. Dialog contra Pelagian August Epist 28 ad Hiâ—â—â—n lib. 3. de pec merit remissic 7 8 9. Ubi totam fere hane Epistol citat lib. 2. contra Julian cap. 3. lib. 4 contra duas Epist Pelag. c. 8. And saith Vossius the judgement here given in about Infant Baptisme is so much the more to be esteemed in that it was the Decree of so famous a Councell and that the adversaries durst not deny it but onely doubted whether Baptisme should be given the eighth day And now give us leave to adde our observation namely That the learned Ancients did look to the Covenant made with Abraham whose seal was circumcision as to a ground of Infant Baptime as appears by Fidus his Argument from Circumcision onely he looked then too much at the circumstance of such a time of childhood as the Anabaptists now do at such a time of ripe years So that it appears by this and the Argument of Cyprian and of that Councell according to their light that that age held not Infant-Baptism from unwritten tradition as Mr T. asserts Now we must turn to Mr T. his EXAMEN EXAMEM Sect. 7. where he hath somewhat to say against most of the Fathers usually alleadged for Infant-Baptism and so against Cyprian 1. He Objects that though Cyprian â—e placed at 250 by Vsher or at 240 by Perkins and consequently though at 248 by us yet Tertullian was before him and counted his master Now in Tertullians time It appears saith Grotius in Mat. 19.14 there was nothing defined concerning the age in which they were to be baptized that were consecrated by their Parents to Christian Discipline because he disswader by so many reasons in his book
of baptisme chap. 18. the baptizing of Infants And iâ— he did allow it as Mr T. adds it was onely in case of necessity as may appear by his words in his book De Animâ Chap. 39. We Reply to this 1. That both these places of Tertullian are before alleadged translated and discâ—ssed Animadver to be for Infant-baptisme chap. 13. of our Animadvers at the word TERTUL in the Margin which we desire the Reader to peruse over again where you may see that Tertullian hath nothing of allowance of Infant-baptisme onely in case of Necessity but if the places be well weighed he saith that which he saith for Infant-baptisme without any such limitation which Infant-baptisme among other passages is asserted by Tertullian in those words That the children of either Parent-sex sanctified are holy partly by the prerogative of the SEED partly by the RVLE OF DISCIPLINE Which what can it be but Baptisme And in those words Those children are Designati sanctitatis the designedones of holinesse or the marked ones of holinesse It is more like that Mr T. meant that Tertullian restrained Infant-baptisme to necessity lib. de Bapt. cap. 18. But we have abundantly cleered this also afore in the 13. Chap. of our Animadvers at the word TERTUL in the Margin and that not out of our own thoughts onely but out of learned Juâ—ius and Vossius Let the Reader have patience to peruse that we have there said We adde now That the most of Tertullians dispute against hastning baptisme chap. 18. of his book concerning Baptisme is against suddain baptizing men of ripe yeers For his words are Give not Baptisme rashly Give not holy things to dogs he counts not Infants of beleevers such as you heard out of his book De anima and here by and by calls them The INNOCENT age If the Eunuch were suddenly Baptised yet the Spirit commanded Philip to go to his Chariot If Paul were suddenly baptized yes he was soon known to Jude his Host that he was a chosen â—essell So Tertul c. It is true that after Tertullian speaks of Infants but what saith he Quid festinaâ— innocenâ—aâ— aâ— ad remissionem peccatorum Why doth innocent age hasten to forgivenesse of sinnes meaning Baptisme Is this a good reason a Scripture ground to defer the Baptisme of Infants He saith himselfe in his said book and 8 chap. De animâ That children are not holy till they be counted so in Christ And how in Christ When they be by means of one of the holy Parents under the promise of being a holy seed and by the rule of Discipline which for children while such was onely Baptisme And whereas Mr T. brings in learned Grotius as countenancing him in relying upon Tertullian against Infant-Baptisme we have largely and plainly layd open after in our Animadversions in this Chap. upon the sixth Section of Mr T. his EXAMEN see the margin there 1. That Grotius rejects Tertullians opinion as nothing swaying him against Infant-Baptisme 2. That Grotius by many Arguments is for Infant-Baptism 3. We now adde that it is true Grotius doth say Tertullianus de aetate quâ baptizandi essent qui Christianae disciplinae a parentibus consâ—crabantur nihil definitum fuisse suis temporibus hoc ipso docet c. That Tertullian sheweth that in his time The set time of Baptizing them that were CONSECRATED BY THEIR PARENTS to Christian Discipline was not determined But what is this to prove that in those times beleevers children must not be baptized till they are out of their Parents guardianship and of ripe years 2. Mr T. Objects against Cyprian EXAMEN Sect. 7. that indeed he handles Infant-Baptisme at large in his 59 Epistle ad Fidum and saith in that Epistle enough for it and more then enough unlesse he had spoken to better purpose The truth is the very reading of the Epistle upon which Hierom and especially Augustine rely for the proving of Infant-baptisme is sufficient to discover how great darknesse there was then upon the Spirits of those that were counted the greatest Lights in the Church You say * upon this occasion Fidus denyed not the baptisme of Infants Mr T. speaks to Mr M. but denyed that they ought to be Baptized before the eighth day But you might have observed that Fidus alleadged That the Law of ancient circumcision was to be considered And That the footstep of an Infant being in the first dayes of birth is not clean Whence it plainly appears that there was a relique of Judaisme in him and that he did not well understand the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law And the truth is the contentions about Easter neer that age do plainly shew that Judaisme was not quite weeded out of the minds of the chief teachers among Christians Thus Mr T. We answer 1 That however Mr T. despiseth here Cyprians testimony Animadver yet the renownedst pious learned esteemed it as Cyrill or John of Hierusalem Gregory Nazianzen Chrysostome Ambrose Hierom Augustine The places where in their works we quoted a little afore in the margin over against the end of the testimony of Cyprian Nor do ancienter writers onely esteeme it on whose spirits Mr T. saith there was such darkenesse and on whose spirit is there not some at this time of great light but also later learned pious writers even Mr T. his beloved Vossius Grotius so oft quoted by him Vossius saith Vossius Thes Theolog. Hist de paedo bapt Thes 9. Grotius in Mat. 19.14 that this testimony of Cyprian is above or beyond all exceptions Grotius saith That the Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus makes the matter plain that there was then no doubt of baptizing Infants c. 2 When Mr T. urgeth the fathers in the least as one place out of one Origen or c. in a point of great doubt we must entertain it by Mr T. his intendment but when we urge many places out of many then saith he they are this and that 3 Better men then these fathers may have some darknesse John Baptist was greater then the prophets and he that is least in the Kingdome of the Church now is greater than he 4 Many men may in these dayes hold a solid truth yet not upon the best grounds of it for want of knowledge of them 5 That Fidus thus far expresly held the ceremoniall law to be abrogated that Baptisme was come in the room of Circumcision and might be administred at least as soon as Circumcision was to children Act. 21.20 Gal. 2. 6 We know that many Christian Jewes in the time of the Apostles and Peter himself did too much Judaize shall not we therefore receive that true light that was in them 7 For that of Ester wee know the controversie too farr and too long about that time invaded Christian England shall not we therefore be regarded in any truth Mr Fox book of Martyrs Yea did not the observation of Ester reach down to Mr
the mother of us all the Baptisme of thy Christ and of God my Lord. And the mother of my flesh was much troubled c. and earnestly hasty that I should be initiated and washed with the saving Sacrament c. But being now refreshed that my purifying was delayed And Augustine tels us the reason in many words the effect in short was this That his friends thought that more indulgence was to be allowed to let him have his will to doe what he listed being yet weake and not fully recovered then was fiâ— to be permitted in case hâ— had bin Baptized Which thing Augustine there bewaâ—â—es in these words my Baptisme was delayed as if it had beene necessary I should be more defiled it I would live It founded in my eares from these and those let him alone to doe what he will for he is not yet Baptized And yet of the health of the body we say not let him be wounded more for he is not yet healed Fourthly when he was Post pueritiam past the age of childhood or of a little boy or lad many and great waves of temptation hung over him * So in the same booke chap of his Confessions And though in his child-hood or lad-ship he loved not his learning and hated to be urged to it yet there was lesse feare of him then then when he was a youth * In adolescentia So in the 12. chap. of that first booke of his Confessions Fifthly After this before his Baptisme which was about the 34. yeere of his age as we shewed afore he ranne into blasphemous errors in so much as his mother would not admit him to her table so he confesseth in his third booke of Confessions Chap. 11. And thus you see the life of Augustine and the causes of the delay of his Baptisme sure enough the delay of his and Constantines baptisme was not from the custome of the Churches as we have before prooved From a non-fact to a non-equity is no consequence though they were not Baptized young yet they ought But Mr. T. Exercitat §. 17. gives other instances for his particulars in his minor of Theodosius Alipius Adeodatus that were not baptized in their child-hood and so Infants baptisme was not Vniversally practised in those times 1. Touching Alipius and Adeodatus we have answered afore Animadver That of Alipius is very doubtfull whether he were of Religious Parents the contrary being more probable by some passages out of Augustine we have there quoted And it is doubtfull of Adeodatus whether he were baptized at 15. yeeres old as was alleadged 2. Touching Theodosius the Great for that 's the man I suppose Mr T. meanes it is true that both Pezelius and Socrates Scholasticus doe tell us that he was baptized at mans estate but they doe not make out that which is deficient in Mr T. his assertion namely whether his Parents or either of them were Christians when he was an infant It is true that they say he was formerly trayned up in Christianitie But by the story it seemes to me that Religion did not so cease upon his spirit or that he did so declare himselfe against Arrianisme and for the Orthodox Religion and faith till he fell sick a little afore his baptisme For the naked story in short is this His Collegues Valentinian the second his assistant in many batles and Gratian who was Partner with Theodosius in a victory against the Barbarians being dead Theodosius succeeded them in the Empire By stock a Spaniard his descent from Trajan he had beene formerly trayned up in Christianitie After the aforesaid battles he fell ill and lay sore sicke at Thessalonica in which time he desired to be baptized Sent for Anatolius alias Ascholius the Bishop of that Church asked him whether it was lawfull for him to be baptized of an Hereticall Bishop The Bishop answering that for his part he detested the opinion of Arius that he imbraced the faith delivered by the Apostles and set forth in the Nicen Creede by the Council of Nice he was presently baptized by him Then wrote Theodosius to the people of Constantinople that he was addicted to the Orthodox Religion and exhorted them to constantly imbrace the Orthodox faith Thus the story Now what inferences Mr T. can justly make hence for a consult delay of Theodosius his baptisme by his Christian friends I know not This hence onely appeares to me that seeing we cannot learne neither how good his Parents were at his baptisme though great in his infancie and who shall meddle with great mens children in point of Sacraments without their consent nor how long or how much his education in Christianity had beene in his youth it being unlikely that forwardnesse in Religion would forward them to be elected Emperours in those generally troublesome and Hethenish times nor what leasure he had seriously to thinke of Religion and worship in his young manhood the Empire then being full of warres against the Gothes Hunnes and Alanes c. That that was the onely fit time to baptize him when he was baptized Now his sicknesse made his soule well Now he had leasure to thinke of Religion for his owne soule now he is hungry for baptisme now he regarded of what faith Ministers were now being Emperour and baptized he declares himself in writing what he was in Religion and in opinion Therefore for Mr T. to infer from the Contingency of Theodosius his baptisme at ripe yeare to a Necessity that the Churches then thought so baptisme ought to be administred is a consequence which I never found in my Logick And if This Theodosius was about the yeere 401. after Christ as the Eccles Chrono at the end of Euseb tells us * Others put him higher then all those Godly learned Ancients before alleadged for infant baptisme from Justin Martyr to Augustin had declared their judgements to the world for the same as the Tenet and Practise of the Churches in all age of the New Testament And therefore Theodosius and the other few instances Mr T. hath given of adult baptisme at ripe yeeres were rather beside then according to the generall Tenet or Practise of the Churches anciently and downward which doe no more infringe the generalily of the Tenet and Practise of Infant baptisme then the hills and vallyes doe the roundnesse of the world's which by the Moone we can see keepes its exact rotundity The Moone light of antiquitie can shew us that the generalitie of Infant baptisme hath been all along so uniuersally held and practised that it swallowes up a small handfull of instances of the other practise Mr T. his fourth particular of his Minor Exercitat Sect. 17. of his fifth argument against infant Baptisme is That together with it went along the error of giving the Lords supper to Infants as is manifest out of the booke of Cyprian de lapsis and others In our answer to this 1. Let us consider the proof 2.
afford some friendly proofes by consequence of iâ— Fourthly the holinesse of the child externall and visible is from their parents who are or ought to be catechized conâ—â—â—tors pâ—nitenâ— and Protestants in trueth which priviledge only open revolt disables them from therefore I say The seed being holy and belonging to the Covenant the Lord graciously admits them also to the seal of it in baptisme Howbeit here a further quaerie arises And because the Sacrament of Baptisme is here handled by us Question How it is capable 1 Pet. 3.21 not a halfe a Sacrament onely including a washing of the flesh but an entire Sacrament holding out and giving an invisible grace by out-ward meanes By what authority shall wee say an Infant may be presented to that whereof it is not capable To that I answer Answer First it 's not meete that Baptisme being the Sacrament of new birth which can be but once should destroy her owne Analogy by frequent administering therefore if but once the most comprehensive way is to do it in the Infancy when the outward admission of a member is allowed to it Secondly although the child be not capable of the grace of the Sacrament by that way whereby the growne are by hearing conceiving and beleeving yet this followes not that Infants are not capable of Sacramentall grace in and by another way Pittifull are the shifts of them that have no other way to stoppe an Anabaptists mouth save by an errour that an Infant may have faith It 's easie to distinguish between the gift conveyed and the manner of conveying it For if the former be the latter in such case will prove needlesse But if the infant be truly susceptive of the substance of Christ none can deny it the Sacrament Now to understand this marke that Infants borne of beleeving parents are of the number of those that shall be saved though dying in their Infancy none of our reformed Churches will deny It is enough therefore that such before death doe partake the benefit of Election in Christ together with the benefits of Christ in regeneration adoption redemption and glory Now that the Spirit can apply these unto such Infants is not doubted of Though the manner thereof to us be as a hidden and mysticall thing yet so it is the Spirit of Christ can as really unite the soul of an Infant to God imprint upon it the true title of a sonne and daughter by adoption and the image of God by sanctification without faith as with it Now if the grace it selfe of Bapâ—â—sme be thus given it why not Baptisme Nay I add further I see no cause to deny that even in and at and by the act of Baptisme as the necessity of the weake infant may admit the Spirit may imprint these upon the soule of the Infant Thus Master Rogers Where by his quotation of Scriptures and discussâ— of arguments you may see what he meant by Apostâ—licall tradition CHAP. XV. Exercitat Argu. 6. §. 19. The argument against Infant-baptisme from humane inventions occasioned by it confirmed THe sixth Argument followes That which hath occasioned many humane inventions partly by which Infant-baptisme it selfe may be under-propped partly the defect in the policy of the Church which in very deed is to be supplied by the lawfull use of Baptisme Of that it is deservedly doubtfull whether it be not in it selfe weake and insufficient for its proper work But the matter is so in the businesse of Infant-baptisme Ergo. The Minor is proved by instances they are 1. The use of suerties in Baptisme which is an humane invention for a shadowy supplement and I had almost said sporting of that profâ—ssion of faith which at first was made by the baptized in his owne person 2. Episcopall confirmation in which the Bishop layes hands or anoints the Catechized that Baptisme or the Baptized may be confirmed and they made capable of the Lords Supper 3. The reformed union by exâ—mination confession subscriptition of the received doctrine in the Church before the communion of the Eucharist of which Parker of Eccles policie l. 3. c. 16. 4. The Church-covenant as they call it afore the admission of members into Church-fellowship of which the New-England Elders in the little booke in English called Church-Covenant which in very deede are devised to supply the place of Baptisme for by Baptisme according to Christs institution a person is exhibited a member of Christ and the Church 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.27 Ephes 4.5 THe seventh Argument Arg. 7 § 20. The argument against Infant-baptisme from the Errors occasioned by it confirmed That which hath occasioned many errors that is deservedly doubtfull whether it be right But the practise of Infant-baptisme hath occasioned either the birth or fostering of many errors Ergo. It is proved by instances 1. That Baptisme conferres grace by the worke done 2. That Baptisme is Regeneration 3. That Infants dying are saved by the faith of their Parents faith of Sureties of the Church receiving into her lap which is to be ascribed alone to the grace of God by Christ 4. That some regenerate persons may utterly fall from grace THe eight Argument That which hath caused many abuses and faults in Discipline Arg. 8 §. 22. The argument against Infant-baptisme from many abuses caused by it confirmed and Divine worship and Conversation of men that is deservedly doubtfull But Infant-Baptisme is such Ergo. It is proved by enumeration 1. Private baptisme 2. Baptisme by women 3. Baptisme of Infants not yet brought into light 4. Baptisme of Infants of uncertaine progeny whom we call children of the earth and world 5. They are baptized in the name of the Lord who know not the Lord nor have ever consented or perhaps will consent to the confession of the name of our Lord. 6. It hath brought in the admission of ignorance and profane men into the communion of the Church and to the Lords Supper for who can deny rightly the right of the Church to the baptized 7 It perverts the order of discipline that first a man be baptized and after among the catechized 8 The Sacrament of baptisme is turned into a meer Ceremony yea into a profane meeting to feast together 9 Men forget Baptisme as if they were never baptized so that it hath the force of a carnall rite not of a spirituall Institution 10 It takes away or at least diminisheth zeale and industry in knowing the Gospel THe ninth Argument That is deservedly doubtfull Argum 9 § 22. The argument from unnecessary disputes caused by it against Infant-baptisme confirmed that yeeldeth occasion to many unnecessary disputes fostering only contention and which cannot be determined by any certain rule But the tenet or rite of Infant-baptisme is such Ergo. It is proved by instances 1 Of baptizing the Infants of Excommunicated persons 2 Of baptizing the Infants of Apostates 3 Of baptizing the Infants of such Parents as are not members in a gathered Church 4 Of
in the Church before the communion of the Eucharist is an human-invention following upon Infant baptisme We answer Animad 1 That M. T. all this while hath contended that Examination and confession before Baptism and consequently afore the Communion is an ordinance of Christ How then says M. T. now that they are human-inventions 2 If subscription be added It is but a visible or legible profession and not so dangerous as Ministers subscriptions have been in the Prelats time though some have had the mercy out of the University to subscribe with their own conditions 3 That there is mention in Isay 44.5 That one shall call himself by the name of Jacob and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord and sirname himself by the name of Israel So that to subscribe to the truth of God professed in a Church to be called a member of the same is no such Scripture-lesse human invention as M. T. would make of it To M. T. his fourth-particular That the Church Covenant Exercitat yea as set forth in the book of the Churches of New England called CHURCH COVENANT is an human-invention devised to supply the place of baptisme We answer We will not say that this is Cynically but wee will say it is boldly spoken by one man Animad so to censure so many brave men for Learning Godlinesse Conscience and Sufferings For 1 we quaere whether M. T. doth thinke the late Nationall Covenant to be a meer human-invention If not let him be moderate in his opinion of Church Covenant 2 Wee assert that whatsoever ingenuous and understanding Reader shall peruse the Book called the Church Covenant will finde it stronger for a Church Covenant then M. T. his Treatise for the Anabaptists way of baptizing 3 We put M. T. in mind that all relations except naturall are founded upon mutuall covenant and agreement as between husband and wife Master and servant amp c. Therefore that between Pastor and flock 4 That Baptisme exhibiting one to be a member of the universall visible Church now on earth doth not make him to belong peculiarly to my flock a See before in the former Chapter touching faults in Discipline that are bound in Scripture duties to mee or mee to be a Pastour and bound in conscience of Pastorall duty to him 5 In that seeing some particular expresse intimation there must be seeing we have not the intellectuall communication of Angels that he or she is of my flock and I their Pastor What can M. T. find out to effect this if he lay aside all Covenantall expressions 6 If the Church Covenant were composed by men as those of mariage servantship c. are yet all divine duties may follow upon this as upon them by divine imposition CHAP. XVII TO the 1 and 2 particulars in the minor of M. T. his seventh Argument of Errours occasioned by Infant Baptisme Exercit. § 20. as that Baptisme confers grace by the work done that Baptisme is regeneration We answer Animad 1 M.T. in all his allegations of Antiquities or others that are orthodox in the mayne hath not to our knowledge produced any such expression as that Popish one that Baptism confers grace by the work done 2 That wee have produced places of best antiquity that expresly tell us that their meaning was that we should not in denying Baptisme to Infants as much as in us lyes hinder their salvation a See before out of Cyprian Thirdly that ancients do call Baptism regeneration is no more than to speak Scripture phrase b Which place the Ancients oft quote in that point John 3.5 Titus 3.5 Fourthly that the ancients did not think Baptism did profit all baptized persons c Lib. 4. contra Donatistas Augustine sayth What profits the Sacrament to them that receive it unlesse they be inwardly changed And blaming some in his time sayth What profits the Sacrament to them that receive it unlesse they be inwardly changed And blaming some in his time sayth Spem baptiz andorum auferunt à Domino Deo in homine ponendam esse persuadent That is They take off the baptized from their hope in God and perswade them to place it in men To M.T. his third particular thence Exercit. that Infants dying are saved by the faith of their parents We reply Animad 1 How doth this agree with the former assertion that we hold baptisme confers grace exâ—pere â—perato by the work done 2 Where in approved antiquity or late Protestant Writers is any such expression Wee say upon very good Scriptures urged afore that a child of a believing parent is to be reckoned within the Covenant by vertue of that parents faith but to pronounce him to be saved thereby is a doctrine unknown to us For those expressions of M.T. annexed to his third particular put upon us as that Infants are saved by the faith of sureties of the Church receiving into her lap wee desire they may be carried back to Rome whence they were brought the dispute now is not between Papists and Protestants To M T. his fourth particular in that argument Exercitat that some regenerate persons may fall from grace We answer Animad That neyther is the dispute betweene Prelaticall-erring-time-serving-vassals and us Have therefore these things away to the Prelaticall Arminians and their State-serving-Complyants CHAP. XVIII TO M.T. his first particular of his minor in his eighth argument Exercitat that Infant-baptisme hath occasioned private Baptisme We answer Animad If M.T. means private in regard of place for wee never knew of difference of forms as that which is done in a dwelling house we demand what danger or derogation is there in that more then in that which is commonly called a Church Or 2 that Baptisme which is not done in a River wee demand whether Baptisme in a dwelling house or in a meeting place in the company of 40 or 50 be not as publike as when two or three steal to a Rivers side in some uncouth and unfrequented place yea and as well done in the sayd houses as there as to the question now in hand of private or not private To M.T. his second particular of Baptisme by women Exercitat occasioned by Infant Baptisme We answer Animad 1 we know no such thing to haue been allowed in the Protestant Churches since Luthers time 2 For ancienter time before the invasion of grosse Popery into the World Bin. The fourth Council of Carthage Ca. 10. commands Mulier baptizare non prâ—sumat that is Let not woman presume to baptize So that if an over-forward Midwife or Matron presumed to baptize upon the example of that bold woman Zippora circumcising her sonne shee had by Moses yet this was not allowed by the orthodox Churches To the third particular Exercitat of baptizing children before they are brought into light We answer Animad wee
about Baptisme Thus of M. T. his 6 7 8 9 Arguments with a generall and particular answers thereunto CHAP. XX. NExt we come to M. T. his tenth Argument which is this Exercitat § 23. That in the midst of the darknesse under the papacie the same men opposed Infant-baptisme who opposed invâ—cation of Saints prayer for the dead adoration of the crosse c. This is manifest 1 Out of the 66 Sermon of Bernard on the Canticles whereof the Hereticks as he calls them who he said boasted themselves to be successors of the Apostles and named themselves Apostolick He hath these words They deride us because we baptise infants because we pray for the dead c. And in his 140 Epistle to Hildefonsus he complains of Henricus the Heritick that he took away Holi-days c. and denied the grace of baptisme to infants 2 From the Epistle of P Abbat-Cluniacensis to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis and Henricus holding errors digested into five heads 1 That little ones are not to be baptized 2 That Churches or Altars ought not to be made 3 That the Crosse of our Lord is not to be adored c. 3 From Lucas Osiander his Epitom of the Ecclesiasticall Historie Cent. 13. l. 1. c. 4. at the year 1207 where he accuseth the Albigensis as consenting with the Anabaptists 4 To which I add That in the ages neere the Apostles Tertulian in his book of Baprisme cap. 18. Greg. Nazianzen in his 40 Oration of holy baptisme disswade the baptisme of infants unlesse the danger of death happen Thus far M. T. Animad Note as an introduction to our Answer That Bernard and Cluniacensis lived about the same time That the very same Henricus alias Heinricus mentioned by Bernard for an Heretick is the same man in all probability that Cluniaâ—ensis mentioneth And in both Authors he is called as by himselfe pretended to be an Apostle Now for Answer we say to M. T. his particular 1 That the same man that opposed Infant baptisme opposed the authority of the Old Testament So did Henricus at this time So sayth Cluniacensis of Henricus alias Heinricus in the place M.T. quotes out of e See more before of Cluniacensis touching Henricus and de Bruis abundantly Chap. 14 of our Animad pag. 160 161 c. Cluniacensis So have the opposers of Infant-baptisme since See Cloppenburgius in his book called The Gangâ—en of Anabaptisticall Divinity Some particulars we have translated afore in the Catalogues of the errors of the Anabaptists Yea the said Henricus and De Bruis doubted of the authority of Pauls Epistles in the New Testament So M.T. his Cluniacensis 2 That formerly those same men that opposed Infant baptisme held all those dreadfull errors we numbred up a little afore Cap. 15. 3 That many of the same men that opposed Infant baptism were either Arians or Pelagians or Socinians or Arminiaus as we have formerly shewed out of Epiphanius Augustin M. Phillips and M. Ainsworth And experience at this day shews us in them that together with Anabaptisme hold universall redemption and free-will 4 That Bernard did justly call Henricus Heretick he holding that the Old Testament and Pauls Epistles were of doubtfull authority as Cluniacensis tells us out of their own writings 5 On the contrary part the same men that have held Infant-baptisme were 1 Gâ—eat lights to the Church As Justin Martyr Irenaeus Cyprian Gregory Nazianzen Tertullian Hierom Augustine c. 2 Glorious Instruments in Reformation Luther Melancthon Bullinger Calvin 3 Were renowned Martyrs dying for Christ Some ancient as Peter Martyr Irenaeus c. Some later as Master Philpot see his Letter in the Book of Martyrs against Anabaptisme A most pious ☞ Note learned and brave letter which may suffice for a Treatise upon the point penned by such a gracious spirit that soone after poured out his bloud for Christ See his Letter at the year 1555 in the book of Martyrs Volume 3. pag. 606. colum 2. of the last Edition in the reign of Queen Mary among M. Philpots Letters Animad To M. T. his second particular in this argument we answer that M. T. reckons out of Cluniacensis five errors that Henricus and De Bruis held against but leaves out the great error they held for which was that the Authority of the Old Testament and of the Epistles of Paul in the New were of doubtfull authority as we touched afore To M.T. his fourth particular touching the ALBIGENSES as they are called in his book We answer That it is true that in M. T. his forequoted place Exercit. there is mention of the ALBINGENSES for I suppose he means them but not a word there of their consenting with the Anabâ—ptists For the naked words are these Ablegabat Innocentius papa cum Petro quod am suo legato duodâ—cim Cisterciencis Sectae Abbates in Albingensium terram ut in viam â—osdem suâ praedicatione reduâ—ment c. That is Pope Innocent with One Peter his Legat sent away twelve Abbâ—ts of the Cistercian Sect or Order into the land of the Albingenses to the intent they might by their preaching bring them back into the way And then tells how they called a Councill of the Arch-bishops Bishops and others to consult which would be the best way to enter upon that design which the Bishop of Oxford advised to be not by externall pomp as they were honourable Bishops but by the preaching of the word and integrity of life And to give them an example he himselfe sent home his glorious retinnue with all the horses coaches and sumpters and went with a few Clergie men on foot and performed the businesse of preaching strenuously And so the story goes off from the Albingenses But being not willing to shift off the businesse we looked afore in that Osiander his Epitome in the year before namely Anno 1206 but in the same Chapter M.T. quotes and there wee found the nest which is little for M.T. his advantage or for the credit of the Anubaptists The inferâ—ing here of the bare story is answer enough In english it is this The Latine as a witnesse of our faithfulnesse in translating you have in the margin EXorta est progressu temporis vires acquisivit haeresis Albingensium sive Albiensium sive Albianorum in Gallia quos alii ab autore allii à loco Galliae sic dictos putant ea Romae primò coepisse postea verò in comitatu Tolosato etiam intra viros illustres longè lateque sparsa dicitur quin etiam in Angliam penetrasse scribitur Dogmata haec illis attribuuntur Duo esse Principia Deum videlicet bonum Deum malum hoc est Diabolum qui omnia corpora crëet Bonum autem Deum creare animas Christi corpus non aliter esse in pane quà m in aliis rebus Baptismum abjiciunt Ire in Ecclesias vel in eis orare nihil prodesse