Cardinal of Ragusi It is asserted that in the beginning of this Sacrament of Baptism they only were to be Baptized who could by themselves answer Interrogatories concerning their Faith and that it was no-where read in the Canon of Scripture that a new-born Infant was Baptized who could neither believe with the heart to Justification nor confess with the mouth to Salvation yet nevertheless saith he the Church hath appointed it H. D. Whereas some Object that Bellarmine and others do also bring Scripture for it Becan Lib. 1. c. 2. Sec. 24. answers that some things may be proved out of Scripture when the Church's sence is first heard about the Interpretation thereof for so he saith it is concerning Infants-Baptism which is proved from John 3.5 But the sense whereby to prove it is only manifest by Tradition H. D. and it is confirmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men that Infant-Baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop laid on hands which was called Confirmation viz. of the imperfect Baptism in Infancy and therefore saith Caistans secundum Jewel that an Infant wanting instruction in the Faith hath not perfect Baptism H. D. Dr. Field Lib. 4. p. 375. saith That Infant-Baptism is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in the Scriptures that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or that they should do so Here the Author stops and goes no farther being afraid of the next lines H. D. Prideaux controv Theol. Sec. 392. Infant-Baptism saith he rests upon no other Divine right than Episcopacy viz Diocesan Episcopacy in use in these Nations Here he adds as before he substracted from what Mr. Tombes said out of Field I. T. i.e. John Tombes In the Council of Bazil in the Oration of the Cardinal of Ragusi it is asserted Item nusquam legitur in Canone Scripturae S. quod parvulus recenter Baptizatus qui nec corde credit ad justitiam nec ore confitetur adsalutem inter fideles credentes computetur nibilominus Ecclesia ita determinavit statuit c. And in principio hujus Sacramenti Baptizabantur solum illi qui per se sciebant fidem interroganti respondere I. T. And whereas it is Objected that Bellarmine and others do bring Scripture for it Becan Manual Lib. 1. C. 3. Sec. 24. answers aliqua possunt probari ex Scriptura quando constat de vero legitimo Scripturae sensu So he saith it is concerning Infant-Baptism which is proved from John 3.5 but that the sense whereby to prove it is only manifest by Tradition I. T. Which is confirmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men an Infants-Baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop layd on hands which act was called Confirmation viz. of the imperfect Baptism in Infancy Jewel alledgeth it as Caistans Tenent that an Infant for that he wanteth instruction in Faith therefore hath not perfect Baptism I. T. Dr. Field of the Church 4th Book Chap. 20. of this sort is Infant-Baptism which is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in Scripture that the Apostles did Baptize Infants nor any express Precept that they should do so Tombes is so ingenious as to set down the rest yet is not this so received by bare and naked Tradition but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it I. T. Dr ' Prideaux Fasci Controv. Theol. Loc. 4. Sec. 3. q. 2. Paedobaptism rests on no other Divine right than Episcopaey Now to all this we have said enough before as to the Substance of it and I love not needless repetitions only let me mind you with this That though Papists and others attribute too much to the custom of the Church or Tradition yet all sound Protestants when they use that word they do it in Sensu sano quite different from the corrupt sense of the Romish Church And because the Author saith Dr. Taylor doth so fully and strenuously argue against us in his Lib. Proph. p. 237 viz. Tradition saith he must by all means supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical That Infants were Baptized I think it not amiss to bring in Dr. Hammond to cope with him in his Letter of Resolution Quaere 4th of the Baptizing of Infants Sec. 104. pag. 277. where having before spoken of what sort of Traditions have been rejected by the Reformed Churches he then adds Having no necessity to descend to any more minute Considerations the whole matter will be resolved into this one Enquiry whether the Baptizing of Infants doth sufficiently appear to be of the Institution of Christ or Practice Apostolical And if it do we have all that we pretend to upon the score of Tradition and if it do not we are obliged to disclaim that means of maintaining our plea or inferring our conclusion And because the way of satisfying this enquiry is but the saying over again all that hath been formerly said on this subject this whole Discourse having laid the weight of all upon this one Basis the Institution of Christ and Practice of the Apostles it will be unreasonable to do this any farther save only upon a brief Recapitulation to refer it to the judgment of any sober Christian Whether first by Christs founding of the Institution of this Sacrament in the Jewish Custom of Baptizing of Proselytes Baptism in use in the Jewish Church and applyed to Infants aswel as grown men The Learned Mr. Selden Light-foot speak the same which appears to have belonged to the Infant Children of the Proselytes as is before shewn out of Goodwin Ainsworth others Chap. 1. and Secondly by his being so far from excepting against the Age of Children as a Prejudice or hinderance to their coming to him that is to their Proselytism that he affirms them to be the pattern of those Though Children are brought to him by others yet they are sayd to come unto him in Mark 10.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very words of which Proselyte is made of whom his Kingdom is to be made up and though he be not affirmed in the Gospel to Baptize such for he Baptized not at all Mark 10.16 Which being the Ceremony usual in the Church for those that were fitted for Baptism and distinctly Preparative to it they that were by Christ afforded that cannot be thought by him less capable of Baptism than of that And Thirdly by the express Words of the Apostle that their Children are Holy interpreted by the Context so as to infer from the Apostles way of Arguing that it was the Custom of those Apostolick times to Baptize the Children of the Christian Parents and so interpreted by the Christian Writers of the First and Purest Ages And Fourthly by the Testimonies of all the Ancients that are found to speak of this matter without any one pretended to dissent that this was the Practice of the Apostles Whether I say these four things being put together the truth of each of
Arise and be Baptized and wash away thy Sins hath a favorable aspect upon Gods designing and blessing that Ordinance for the sealing of pardon in reference to grown Persons 2. To work Grace and Regeneration This is Mr. Tombes his 7th Argument against Infant-Baptism Exer. pag. 30. and to effect Salvation by the work done Although the Author knows all Protestants disclaim this and condemn it for a damnable Error yet he seems indirectly at least to charge it upon the Church of England which for my part I look upon it as very unjustly done What means else those reflections of his pag. 148. upon that passage in the Service-Book in the Rubrick before the Catechism viz. That Children being Baptized have all things necessary for their Salvation and be undoubtedly saved and then after Baptism the Priest must say We yield thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased thee to Regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit just comporting saith he length and breadth with Pope Innocent's first Canons Answer 'T is fit the Church of England should be believed in what sence she intends those words Baptism by the Ancients was commonly called Regeneration or a new-Birth so 't is by the Scripture Tit. 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Washing of the new-Birth or Regeneration and we may learn it in her Articles which speaks her at an infinit distance from the absurd and irrational Error of Salvation by merit or ex opere operato and 't is not for others to put what interpretation they think meet especially such as are Obnoxious to her Lash Will you hear what Mr. Cotton of New-England an Independant as they call them speaks in Vindication of the Church of England in this particular matter and at a place where he needed not her favour and as I take it at a time when she could not help him which are circumstances that will not suffer us to suspect him of flattering or fawning We have it in his grounds and ends of Children's Baptism Notwithstanding saith he those expressions in the Service Book yet the Church of England doth professedly teach the contrary Doctrine not only in their Pulpits but in Books allowed by publique Authority She doth assert that the Scraments do not beget Faith nor Regeneration ex opere operato but they are signs and seals thereof Nor do I find that the publique Prayers of the Church are contrary hereunto but as in judgment they do believe that God by Covenant promiseth to pour clean Water upon us and our Seed Ezek. 26.25 Is 48.3 and that he Sealeth the Covenant and Promise by Baptism 3. That it was an Apostolical Tradition And for that we have the Testimonies of Origen and Cyprian as before Mr. Tombes his 4th Argument against Infant-Baptism Exerc. p. 28. Chap. 3. Part 2. who lived near the Apostles days and in which Chapter we have also shewn how Tradition is both by the Fathers of old and Reformed Churches taken in a safe sence different from that corrupt one of the Papists and not derogatory to the authority of the Scripture 4. That Children have Faith and are the Disciples of Christ Answer No Paedobaptists ever held Children had personally actual Faith for their condition is insufficient for the production of Intellectual Acts but as for the habit and grace of Faith the inherent infused power of believing it is more than any Antipaedobaptist in the World can prove they have not for 1. Their condition makes them not uncapable of Sin and Corruption in the Roots and Principles of it most of them confess it Anabaptistae ut Paedobaptismum prorsus tollerent peccatum negârunt Originale ut non sub esset causa cur Infantes Baptizarentur Dr. Prideaux Lect. 22. pag. 331. though some of them deny Original Sin and therefore not of the Roots and Principles of grace of which Faith is one for the acts of both are Moral and Intellectual But whether Infants Baptized have any such thing as a distinct habit of Faith or no this question of their Baptism depends not upon it It is a hidden thing The ground on which we give them Baptism must be visible and so it is viz. their being the Seed of Believers and hereby visibly entitled to the Covenant and so to the Seal of it We look not to what they have but to whom they pertain viz. to God as being the Seed of his Servants That they are Disciples is sufficiently proved Chap. 1. Part. 1. 5. That all Children of Believers are in the Covenant and federally Holy That 's abundantly made good Chap. 3. Part 2. 6. By defiling and polluting the Church viz. 1. By bringing false matter therein who are no Saints by calling being neither capable to perform duties nor enjoy priviledges Notwithstanding their inability to perform Duty yet they are capable of enjoying Priviledges as we have abundantly made good Chap. 6. Part 1. and are as true matter for the Church now under the Gospel as formerly under the Law as is there made out 2. By laying a foundation of much Ignorance and Profaness Cujus contrarium est verissimum The contrary is most true for 1. Infant-Baptism layes a singular good foundation for knowledg for in that Children are taken into Christs School they are in a near capacity to be taught and those who recommend them to that Ordinance are obliged to promote their knowledg and to see them brought up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. And we know the Liturgy of the Church of England But the neglect hereof is much to be lamented the Children are not lookt after as they should be nor do Ministers mind them of their duty gives charge You must remember that it is your part and duty to see that this Infant be taught so soon as he shall be able to learn And that he may know these things the better ye shall call upon him to hear Sermons and chiefly you shall provide that he may learn the Creed the Lords-Prayer and the ten-Commandments in the English Tongue and all other things that a Christian man ought to know and believe to his Souls health c. Secondly it laies a good foundation for Holiness They are minded by their Baptism to cast of the Devil's service as soon as they are able to reflect that they were from their very Cradles dedicated to God whose Livery they have worn And some have repelled great temptations by virtue of their engagement to God by Baptism in their Infancy hence saith Mr. Ford in his 2d Dialogue concerning the Practical use of Infant-Baptism pag. 87. There is a very Prophane Spirit fomented under the Wings of Anabaptism for how can it be otherwise than such which endeavours to extirpate so considerable a means for the advance of Conversion and Sanctification as he shews Infant-Baptism to be Hence saith he arise grievous prejudices against those Ministers Societies and Ordinances in which God hath been wont
Infant-Baptism ASSERTED VINDICATED By SCRIPTURE And ANTIQUITY IN ANSWER To a Treatise of Baptism lately published by Mr. HENRY DANVERS Together with a full Detection of his Misrepresentations of divers Councils and Authors both Ancient and Modern WITH A Just Censure of his Essay to Palliate the horrid Actings of the Anabaptists in Germany AS ALSO A Perswasive to Unity among all Christians though of Different Judgments about Baptism By OBED WILLS M. A. Vt Christus Infantes ad se venire jussit ità nec Apostoli eos excluserunt à Baptismo quidem dum Baptismus Circumcicisioni aequiparat Paul Col. 2. apertè indicat etiam Infantes per Baptismum Ecclesiae Dei esse inserendos c. Magdib Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. p. 354. LONDON Printed for Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lyon in St. Paul's Church-yard 1674. THE PREFACE THere is a New Treatise come forth concerning Baptism the Design whereof is to prove the Baptism of Believers and to disprove that of Infants There is great Cracking about it and some cry it up for a None-such that it is unanswerable and as I hear the Author himself Ixion-like falls in love with his own shadow and being Philautia nimis inflatus puffed up with the excellency of his performance glories much and pretends that he hath not only proselyted many of the Vulgar sort but some also of the Ministry And it is very certain that at its first appearance last Summer divers persons were Dipped in these parts and as I have been informed 7 or 8 in a day in the City of Bristol and in all likelyhood we may hear of many more this Summer for those who are inclinable to the Way are now grown so politick as not to profess their Faith till warm Weather This I do assure the Reader that the Book as to any thing material in it hath been many times answered before ever it came forth and that 's the reason belike we have heard of no Reply since it hath seen the light which is now about twelve Months All the Mediums he useth to maintain his Opinion are such trite and out-worn things that they have been in effect trampled upon and confuted again and again Nevertheless such is the Clamorousness of some men that they affect to have the last word when in modesty they ought to be silent and consider that it is their duty to unlearn a darling Errour and no dishonour to strike sail to convincing Reason Great Endeavours have been used to undeceive the Antipaedobaptists and 't is the unhappiness of many Godly and Learned Divines instead of meeting with answerable success to have their Pains contemned and their Persons loaded with Aspersions The Author of the Treatise I am to examine hath only affixt H. D. to the Title-page that is as appears by a Second Edition lately come forth Henry Danvers although in regard of the principal Materials the Book hath more reason to pretend to J. T. that is John Tombes for its Author For although H D. hath for some years lived a solitary contemplative Life and hath had opportunity for study yet owneth he not so much Scholarship if they say true that know him as to compose such a Piece nor is he so well acquainted with Fathers Councils Schoolmen had not most of it been prepared to his hand Indeed I find he is somewhat vers'd in the Magdiburgensian History though he hath made very ill use of it But for the Argumentative part especially the Opposition made against Infant-Baptism both the Method and Matter of his Treatise declares where he hath been fishing for I find very little in it besides what is borrowed from Mr. Tombes his Exercitation and Examen long since answered by M. Marshal Dr. Homes Mr. Gerce Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter But forasmuch as the Contest hath taken a Nap for about 20 years it was thought fit to give it one lusty jog more and awaken it again And in regard those Polemical Discourses are rarely found in Vulgar hands but are thrown aside into Corners and lie solitary as neglected things in Studies and Booksellers Shops the Author and his Coniederates out of their dear love to their Darling Opinion thought meet to make some good improvement of the late Liberty granted by his Majesty's gracious Declaration and to take up the Gantlet again and fall to the old Trade of Wrangling For some men are of a restless Spirit and if their Hands be tied up from fighting they will do it with their Tongues and Pens The Preface is made up of Invectives against the Assertors of Infant Baptism but mostly against Mr. Baxter by reason of some Passages of his in a late Book called The Christian Directory against which he seems to have a very great zeal but I fear his envy against his Person doth exceed it For do but compare the Preface with the Epilogue of our Authors Treatise and you will find he seems to entertain a better opinion of John of Leyden then of him I understand Mr. Baxter will speedily write something for his own Vindication and I long to see it that so nothing that he hath said in his Christian Directory may prove a Stumbling-block to the Weak and more confirm the Antipaedobaptists in their Errour The truth is those people are very sensible how much he hath wounded their Cause and are glad with an occasion of wounding his Reputation But I profess I could not but smile to observe how he seems to bewail the Indiscretion of Mr. Baxter and rebukes him for Printing his Judgement in some Points that refer to Baptism and other things at such an unseasonable time as if he had hit upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the fittest opportunity to declaim against Infant Baptism But doth he take this to be a fit time of the day to use his own Phrase to widen Differences and set us at farther distances when we are almost sinking under fears and daily expectations of troubles Is it a fit season for us to be wrangling when Gods Rod is shaking over all our Heads Must he at such a time enter upon the old Obfolete Controversie and inveigh against Childrens Baptism which evermore hath occasioned heart-burnings and fruitless contendings especially when 't is disputed against with a lofty bitter and disdainful Spirit of which we perceive too much in this last attempt Ah! what a restless Genius is there attending some Opinions and how careless of the Churches Peace are the Abettors of them What the Author himself speaks pag. 308. from Clopenburg's Epistle of the Anabaptists heretofore in Germany is too true of some of those in England viz. That they suffer not the pure Reformed Churches to be edified without daily conflicts For not only heretofore in times of Liberty but even now under restraint some hot-spirited Persons publish their Tenents with such a rigid and condemning Spirit that it proves the greatest hinderance of Union and Conjunction amongst us in this Nation The
saved and consequently our Children cannot be saved because they cannot believe The same condition being required to precede Baptism that is required to precede Salvation You see whether the Argument may be carried and what little ground of comfort such doctrine affords in the death of our children To conclude then whereas they argue from this place of Mark we must believe and be baptized but Infants cannot believe therefore may not be Baptized will it not as directly follow that since they can't believe they must be damned let them frame an answer to the one and then they have answered both for look saith Mr. Marshall by what distinction they will maintain the Salvation of Infants against this Argument by the same will I more clearly justifie the Baptism of Infants against this Argument Having thus cleared the Texts from the false glosses Antipaedobaptists put upon them we shall next examine the passages out of Authors which my Antagonist quotes for his opinion The first he brings is Mr. Baxter who having so notably wounded their cause in his plain Scripture proof for Infant Church-Membership and Baptisme is become the man of their indignation and Indeed I fear the Author with whom I have to do is possest with a malevolent spirit against that Learned and Godly Divine and is glad of any occasion to wound his reputation as appears by his dealing with him in his Preface and divers other places in the Treatise Mr. Baxter saith he doth fully acknowledge in his Book called the second Disputation of Right to Sacraments pag. 149 150. Where he saith This speaking of the Commission of Christ to his Disciples is not like some occasional mentioning of Baptisme but it is the very Commission it self of Christ to his Disciples and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and orders Their first Task is to make Disciples which are by Mark called Believers The second work is to baptize them whereto is annext the promise of their Salvation The third work is to teach them all other things which are after to be Learned in the School of Christ to contemn this order saith he is to contemn all Rules of Order for where can we expect to find it if not here I profess my Conscience is fully satisfyed that the Minister must expect a profession of Faith before Baptism To discover the Craft and Sinister dealing of our Opponent I must first acquaint the Reader that Mr. Baxter disputing with Mr. Blake who was for a large Admission to the Sacraments explains the Thesis in his second disputation thus viz. That Ministers must not Baptize the Children of those that profess not saving faith upon profession of any Faith that is short of it these are his very words pag. 53. And after it nine lines lower that he might not be mistaken hath this by way of caution viz. That he would have the Reader to understand that all along in the discourse of the whole Book the dispute is about the aged themselves whether they may be baptized so that it is none of our work at this time saith he to defend the Subjects as to their age against the Anabaptists but our present business is to enquire what that faith is that quallifieth persons to be just subjects of Baptism or to be such whose children may receive it upon the account of their faith or profession Disp 2. p. 4. Moreover in his fourth Disputation he hath this passage We take it for granted that the Right of Infants is upon the account of their Parents Faith therefore we manage this discourse with respect to the Adult P. 351. What could any man in the World say more to prevent the Cavils of unworthy persons And certainly he had not said so much unless he had known how our opposites lye at the Catch and yet we see this would not do for we have found a man of so much dis-ingenuity as to traduce and pervert the sayings of this worthy person to countenance his errour I have been the larger in setting down Mr. Baxters words that it may leave some impression on the Readers Memory when he finds any thing quoted out of Mr. Baxters Disputations about the Right to Sacraments that so it might be as a Key to open his meaning in all those numerous passages the Author hath pikt up out of that Dispute which indeed fills up many pages of his Book Next we have Mr. Calvin introduced as speaking something in favour of their opinion Ergò ut se ritè ad Baptismum offerant homines peccatorum confessio ab illis requiritur alioqui nihil quam inane esset ludicrum tota actio Notandum est de Adultis his verba fieri Calv. in Mat. 3.6 Verùm quia docere prius jubet Christus quam baptizare tantum credentes ad Baptismum vult recipi videtur non ritè administrari baptismus nisi fides praecesserit c. Eos qui fide in Ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus cum sua sobole censeri in Christi membris in salutis haereditatem simul vocari Nec modò seperatur hoc modo Baptismus a fide Doctrina quia licet pueri Infantes nondum per aetatem fidem babent Deus tamen eorum parentes compellans c. whereas few ever wrote so smartly against them it is from that same passage of his on Mat. 6. c. Therefore that men may rightly offer themselves to Baptisme Confession of sin is required otherwise the whole action would be but Sport The words indeed are Mr. Calvins so that I confess my Antagonist speaks truth but he should have done well to have spoken the whole truth For Mr. Calvin also cauteously adds It is to be Noted that these words are spoken of Adult persons And that we may see his judgement fully take notice of his Paraphrase upon the 28. of Mat. 19. and that other Text Mark 16.16 But because saith he Christ commandeth us to teach before he commands us to Baptize and he would have believers only admitted to Baptism it seems Baptism is not rightly administred unless faith goeth before From this place saith Calvin the Anabaptists oppose Infant Baptism To which he presently answers That those whom we see by a Profession of their Faith to be admitted into the Church we are to look upon them together with their off-spring as the members of Christ and to be jointly called to the inheritance of the Saints neither is Baptism hereby separated from Faith and Teaching because though children have not yet faith by reason of their Age. Nevertheless God taking their Parents into Covenant they themselves are also to be imbraced in the same Covenant After Calvin comes Piscator to as little purpose whose words on Mark 1.4 are these It is called the Baptisme of Repentance because John Preached remission of sins to the penitent Believers But why should this worthy Author be thus curtail'd whenas he farther expresseth himself thus Baptismus
a Christian when he was born and for his Father Constantine every one knows he was none though he favoured the Christians Furthermore Mr. Marshal conceives the reason why he received not Baptism in his Infancy was thus as follows viz. Constantine his Father albeit a man of a sweet temper and tender of his Subjects first out of the mildness of his nature favoured the Christians seeing their unblameable Conversation and Faithfulness in all their imployments therefore he did not in a hostile way pursue their Religion as other Emperours did yea at length he grew to a good esteem of it especially towards the end of his life in this time his Son Constantine the Great lived in Dioclesian his Court from whence his life being twice in danger he suddenly escaping came to his Father then sick and presently upon his death was saluted Emperour These things considered it is no marvel if he were not Baptized in his Infancy when for ought we read neither of his Parents had then imbraced the Christian Religion When he was returned at his Father's Death he was thirty years of Age and whether ever his Father was Baptized the Story is silent Neither is Helena her affection to Religion in his Infancy related in the Story though afterward it is often mentioned Tombes Nazianzen saith Tombes for we have to deal with him almost every-where in H. D. 〈◊〉 Treatise was the Son of a Christian Bishop But how doth that appear faith Mr. Marshal there was a time when he was a Heathen whether he was Converted before his Son was born is not exprest whilst he was young he went with Basil to Athens to be bred in humane Literature and from thence to Antioch but not a word is mentioned of his being addicted to Christianity Having spent thirty years in the Study of Humane Literature he returns to his Father and if his Parents were Christian when he was born they shewed no good sign of it in sending him to Athens to be trained up among Idolatrous Heathens so it is aquestion whether Bazil's Father was achristian when he sent him likewise to Athens to be there bred in humane Literature though afterward he became Bishop of Nisen Tombes Then for the Story of Chrysostom 't is verbatim out of Tombes his Examen pag. 9. who saith out of Grotius upon Matt. 19. That he was born of Christian Parents and educated by Meletius a Bishop yet was he not Baptized till past 21 years of age It is well replyed by Marshal That this is taken up purely upon the credit of Grotius who gives no account from whence he fetcheth the relation which is the more to be suspected because the Magdeburgenses speak not a word of it And the Ecclesiastical Historians that set forth the place of his Birth and Parentage and likewise his Call to his Ecclesiastical Dignity are silent in this and give not the least hint of his Religion or Baptism Others speaking of him and of his Parents say they were both Heathens and his Father dyed within a very short time of his birth It appears saith Mr. Marshal from his own Writings that when he was twenty years of Age his Mother was a Christian but whether Father or Mother were so at his birth is uncertain and not likely because his Education in his younger-time was under Libanius a great Enemy of the Christians by which it appears that it is falsly suggested that he was Educated by Meletius Lastly for Austin for he is the last we will speak of and we may judge of the rest by these he was not Baptized saith Tombes Tombes Examen Pag. 14. Examen Pag. till about 30. though Educated as a Christian by his Mother Monica To which Mr. Marshal thus replys viz. I will not take upon me to determine what the particular reason was of his not being Baptized in his Infancy but from hence there is no cause to say that Children of Christians by profession in that Age were not Baptized in Infancy For first it must be proved that Austin's Parents were Christians at his Birth otherwise whatsoever is said of him is not to the Question Austin himself tells us in his Confessons That when he was Puer a Child he was extream sick like to dye and he and his Mother were both troubled for not being Baptized and for his Father he sayes at that time he was an Infidel c. But enough if not too much of this they that would know the full Story of his Fathers Conversion may find it in Austin's Confessions Lib. 2. c. 6. And Austin himself confesseth he put off his Baptism till about the 30th year of his Age being poysoned with the Manichean Heresie in which he continued nine years Confess Lib. 3. c. 11. and during which time he saith he derided Baptism Reader I am not willing to make Ostentation of greater skill in History than I have and therefore know I am beholding to Mr. Marshal who hath made these Relations ready to my hand After this we have a plausible Story of one Walfridus Strabo an Ecclesiastical Historian and what is brought from him the Author borrows from his good friend Mr. Tombes you shall have it in his very words that you may know where the Author hath been fishing Tombes in his Exercitation Printed 1646. Pag. 27. hath it thus Tombes his Exercitation Pag. 27. The words of Walfridus Strabo who lived about the year 840. in his Book De Rebus Ecclesiasticis Chap. 26. are these We are also to note that in the first times the grace of Baptism was wont only to be given to them who by integrity of body and mind were come to this that they could know and understand what profit is to be obtained in Baptism what is to be Confessed and Believed what lastly is to be observed of them that are born again in Christ and confirms it by Austin 's own Confession of himself continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptized but afterwards Christians understanding Original Sin ne perirent parvuli Tombes hath it in Latin but the Author in English and lest Children should perish without any means of Grace had them Baptized by the Decrees of the Council of Africa and then adds how God-fathers and God-mothers were invented To this I Answer That Strabo is condemned by many Learned men for a false and heedless Writer and they have shewn his errors in diverse things Vossius chargeth him with no small faults in relating matters of Fact As First he said Austin in his Confessions tells us he continued a Catechumenus till he was 25 years old Tombes mentions not this as knowing Strabo was out in his reckoning Now Austin himself tells us in his Confessions that he was not converted till about the 30th year of his Age and after that continued a Catechized Person two years and in the 34th year of his Age he was Baptized at Millain by Ambrose Secondly whereas he makes as if Infant-Baptism were an Innovation
notwithstanding the confidence of the adverse party unless they can produce one Express place of Scripture where it is said No Infant was Baptized or some Express Command not to Baptize them their calling for an Express Command concludes nothing against our Practice 2. Moreover we affirm against their Practice that there is no Express Command in all the Book of God to plunge persons Head and Ears under water nor can they by any convincing Circumstance about the manner of Baptizing make it appear though thousands were Baptized in a day that any one was so severely dealt with in the primitive times we shall shew when we come to it that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among Heathen and Ecclesiastical Writers doth promiscuously signify to dip into or wash with Water by pouring on of it and in the Scripture it is more frequently taken for Washing than dipping 3. They have no Express Command or Example to Baptize or plunge themselves as they do with their Cloaths on which is rather a Baptizing Garments than Bodies Since they are so much for Express Command and Example let them first justify their own Practice by it before they condemn us for want of it 2. He tells us That the approved Practice and known custom of the Primitive Church was to Baptize the Adult as all Ages acknowledg and only they at least for the first as is so fully attested by Eusobius Beatus Rhenanus Lud. Vives Bullinger Haimo the Neocaesarian Council Look back Reader to that saithful Account I have given from the Magdeburgensian Century-Writers and thou shalt be able to judg of the truth of what he speaks I am necessitated to touch upon it again what Eusebius speaks of Origens being a Teacher before Baptism refers to the Pagans what that Old Popish St. Beatus Rhenanus saith of the Ancient custom which was to Baptize those that were come to full growth with the Bath of Regeneration if it relates to Heathens it is no more to purpose than the former out of Eusebius but if we are to understand him so as if no Children were anciently admitted to Baptism no not those of Believers then we plead an older custom even as old as Origen and Tertullian that Children were Baptized in the Church and as Mr. Calvin hath it in his Instruction against the Anabaptists The Holy Ordinance of Infant Baptism hath been perpetually observed in the Christian Church for there is no ancient Writer that doth not acknowledg its Original even from the Apostles which was the Reason why Austin hath that Expression concerning it namely Nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus qui non ejus Originem ad Apostolorum saculum pro certo referat Calvini Instit cap. 17. part 8. pag. 227. Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit The Church always had it always held it And for Lud. Vives his saying That they Baptized the Adult in some Cities of Italy his Testimony hath been always looked upon as very incompetent because he was but of yester-day and we have nothing but his bare word for it and not to be compared with Austin's a man of great integrity and that lived above thousand years nearer the Apostles who affirms it was not only Practised in his day but before and quotes Testimonies for it Then for Haim◠all that he sais upon Matt. 28 will not prejudice us his words are Here is set down a rule how to Baptize that is that Teaching should go before Baptizing c. which we confess ought to be so when we have to deal with Pagans and he speaks of such And as none of the Popish School-men are for the Authors turn though we have many passages quoted out of them to no other end but to blind the Reader and make the Book swell so I am mistaken if that which he quotes out of Albertus Magnus the Conjurer be much for his turn you have it in the 12th Cent. p. 85. of his Treatise And lastly for the Neocaesarian Council that business is of a very ridiculous nature and impertinent to the question for the matter under debate in that Council was about a Woman that was pregnant who being an Infidel came to be Baptized and the Canon speaks of such a one and not of a Woman that was within the Church of a Child born of a believing Parent as is fully shewn before in Cent. 4. 3 Whereas he saith not only the Children of Pagans were to be Instructed and taught in the Faith in order to Baptism but the Children of Christians also as those famous instances given from the 4th Century We have shewn in our discourse upon that Century the corrupt and silly grounds upon which they deferred Baptism till they were grown up in those days and some of the instances there given had Parents that were Heathens when they were born and so continued till they were come to Maturity and that was the reason they were Baptized though 't is true their Parents were at last converted to the Christian Faith 4. He farther saith that as there was no Scripture-Authority for it so no Human Authority till above 400 years after Christ though to justify that injunction Apostolical-Tradition to supply the want of Scripture-Institution was pretended I may almost say truly of this Quot dicta tot maledicta so many words so many foul reproaches Calumniare fortiter aliquid adhaerebit said Machiavel and our Author follows the Rule exactly he thinks he can never throw dirt enough upon Infant-Baptism hoping some will at last stick I shall Reply to this First To say there is no Scripture-Authority for Infant-Baptism and that Apostolical Tradition was on purpose brought in to supply the want of it are presumptuous weak and false dictates Since the same Men viz. The Fathers that call it an Apostolical Tradition do upon the matter all of them plead for it upon Scripture-grounds as Cyprian Nazianzen Chrysostom Ambros Epiphartius who argue for Infant-Baptism because it came in the room of Circumcision and from the right the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision and of latter days Protestants own nothing for truth that comes under the notion of Apostolical-Tradition Proinde necessario veniendum erat ad argumenta ex Scripturis quae si rem non evincant frustrà traditionem ad vocabimus Riv. Animad in annot Grotii in Cassandrum Art 9. p. 71. unless they see ground for it in Scripture they are of Rivets mind that Tradition is in most points uncertain and thereforē if we will be certain of a thing we must see the foot-steps of it in the word And Mr. Calvin speaks to the same purpose in his Instructions against the Anabaptists Caeterum minime peto ut in eo probando nos Antiquitas ullo modo juvet c. I do not in the least desire to borrow help from Antiquity for the proof of this point any whit farther than the judgment of the Ancients shall be found to be grounded on
but rather as the Magdeburgenses do Cent. 2. p. 111. to the Mystery of Iniquity Mr. Geree of vind Paedobapt which so works in the Church of Rome in their corrupting and contaminating the simple forme of Baptism Indeed saith Mr. Philpot the Martyr to his fellow-sufferer that scrupled Infant-Baptism and afterward was satisfied by the strength of his Arguments if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only which have corrupted God's Word by false interpretation and hath perverted the true use of Christs Sacraments you may seem to have good handfast of your opinion against the Baptism of Infants but for as much as it is of more Antiquity and hath its begining from God's Word and from the use of the Primitive Church it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected or thought inexpedient Nor hath the Baptism of Adult Persons in former times been free from many corrupt and ridiculous Human inventions as Dr. Homes out of Binius and Epiphanius shews at large The Council of Carthage tells us Bin. Ca. 34 de rebus Eccles Cap. 26. that sick men lying speechless might be Baptized upon the witness of men touching their former condition The 4th Council of Carthage orders That those of ripe years to be Baptized must be dyered Bin. Cap. 85. and kept from Fesh and Wine a long time and after that having been examined several times must be Baptized Epiphanius declares that the Eunomians called Anabaptists do Rebaptize all that come to them Epiphan Anacephal pag. 108. Edit lat Bazil turning their Heads downward and their Heels upward Some of the Anabaptists called Hemerabaptists thought that none could be saved unless they were daily-Baptized whence they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gerard. Joh. Voffus de Anaebaptismo Thes 17. Gastius de Anaebap Exod. p. 50. daily Baptists and so were cleansed from their Sins Singulis diebus mergerentur ita ut Abluantur Sanctificentur ab omni culpa Secondly Another small plot or piece of tunning lyes in linking some spurious Authors with those which are Authentick to render also their Authority Suspicious There are some Ancient Writers which are very express for Infant-Baptism of great Authority in the Church of Rome which are rejected as spurious or interpolate by the Protestants such is that of Dimysius the Areopagite and the Decretal Epistles who notwithstanding have in high account the Testimonies of those Ancients viz. Justin Martyr Irenaus Origen Cyprian c. which are reputed as Authentick and of undoubted truth 3. There is much Impertinency in his Historical Account that is not concerned in the Question As the Story of Constantine Dedication Consecration or Baptizing of Churches and Bells Exposure of the Reliques of Saints for adoration Prohibiting Priests Marriages with much more ejusdem farinae But what is all this to Infant-Baptism 4. There are some errors or falsities in it As Tertullian's standing up against Infant-Baptism in the 3d Century when he stood up no more against it than he did against the Baptizing of Young-men that were unmarried and Young-Widows also whose Baptism he would have delayed 'T is certain he argues for the delay of Baptism in some cases praecipue circa paroulos Tertul. de Bapt. C. 8. especially that of little ones meaning the Children of unbelievers as is conceived by Estius Pamelins and divers others A Second Error respecting this Century is That the Magdeburgenses tell us they altered the form of Baptism from dipping to sprinkling referring us to Cent. 3. pag. 129. where they speak no such thing nor any-where else in the whole History of Baptism A Third Escape is That Infant-Baptism was not in use in the greatest part of the 4th Century either in the Latin or Greek Church Now this is very false nor will that help him which he adds afterward Scil. It is true saith he towards the latter end of this Century it is said that in some parts of Africa they did Baptize Children as Magdeburg Cent. 4. p. 415. but they say no such thing it is only the Authors own saying and really it troubles me to see so much prevarication every-where Take Reader the true account of what the Magdeburgenses say de Ritibus circa Baptismum about Baptismal Rites They are large in this Chapter and begin it thus That the power of Baptizing was in this Age in the Priests and principally in the Bishops and then in Presbyters and Deacons and then a few lines after they tell us Baptizabantur autem publice in templis cujuscunque sexus aetatis conditionis homines Persons of each Sex and of all Ages and Conditions were publickly Baptized in the Temples Nor hath this Chapter any such passage at the beginning middle or latter end that in some parts of Africa they did Baptize Children 5. I will not say there is a Tincture of prophaneness but am sure of something like it in that saying of the Authors pag. 128. of his Treatise viz. In this 6th Century saith he we meet with a dreadful piece of Infant-Baptism viz. The Heads of 6000 Infants that had been murdered buried in a Warren near a Monastery as testified by Vldricus to P. Nicolas Cent. 6. p. 338. But the Magdeburgenses are not so bold as the Author to call such horrid murder Infant-Baptism A tender conscience me thinks should be afraid thus to play with Holy things 6. This History of his affords some contradiction to himself I mean to what he hath before written for in the first part of his Book Cap 2. pag. 7. he quotes Bede for a Testimony that the Baptizing of Believers is the only true Baptism Bede saith That Men were first to be instructed unto the Knowledg of the Truth then to be Baptized as Christ hath taught c. Cent. 8. p. 220. Whereas in this his Second part of the Treatise which is for disproving Infant-Baptism pag. 130. Bede also concludes for the Baptizing of Infants Cent. 8. p. 218. 7. We observe too great a boldness in those scandalous Reflections which he casts upon the Churches of the Reformed Religion sparing none neither Lutherans nor Calvinists nor Episcoparians nor Presbyterians But me thinks 't is a piece of great indiscretion to fly out so much against the Church of England for if she be contented to give the Antipaedobaptists indifferent good quarter although they do not conform to her why should any of them vilify her in this manner As for the Kirk of Scotland the Author may more securely mock at it and there is no danger in having a fling at the Directory or at the old Parliament's Ordinance of May 2d 1648. which made it imprisonment to affirm Infant-Baptism is unlawful CHAP. III. Containing his Exceptions against Infant-Baptism because built as he says upon 1. Fabulous Traditions 2. Mistaken Scriptures with an Answer thereto 1. The first and Principal ground saith he that hath been asserted for this Practice is Ecclesiastical and
and he might have learned the contrary from the Magdeburgenses Cent. 4. cap. 10. p. 1218 1219. where they say extant inter Origenis opera Latina facta quaedam quorum interpres fuit Hieronimus Erasmi judicio Divers of Origen's Works are Translated by Jerom. This is the judgment of Erasmus as his Homilies upon Jeremy Ezechiel his Homilies upon Luke and the Romans to both which Jerom affixeth his own Preface as Erasmus observes and in both these have we the point of Infant-Baptism asserted and so we see the Author might have spared the pains of telling such a Story of Ruffinus for we give the places which are for our turn out of Origen according to Jerom's version and if Ruffinus hath no credit with him I hope he will allow a little to Jerom 3. Lastly for that other ancient Father Cyprian he cannot let him pass without some exceptions such as they are though me thinks that of Vossius should silence all Cavils viz That the Testimony of Cyprian for Infant-Baptism both in his time and before is beyond all exceptions And Grotius likewise tells us that the Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus makes the matter plain that there was then no doubt of Infant-Baptism for Fidus did not deny their Baptism but only denyed they ought to be Baptized before the eight day But let us hear what he hath to except against Cyprian which is 1. Because he doth not urge the Practice from any Apostolical Tradition or Precept but from his own and the Council of sixty six Bishops Arguments Reply But what though no mention be made here of Apostolical-Tradition Origenes Cyprianus Authores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos esse Magdeburg Cent. 1. Lib. 2. c. 6. p. 496. yet it follows not that he held it not as such and the Magdeburgenses have before told us that both Origen and Cyprian that lived near the Apostles affirm that even in the Apostles time Infants were Baptized But to see how inflexible and stiff this Antagonist is if saith he he had Asserted it for an Apostolical Tradition his word would have been no sooner taken than when he tells us that Chrysm was so To which I Reply And why then shall Tertullian's supposed Word against Infant-Baptism be taken and pass for currant who was as the Magdeburgenses inform us the first inventer of Chrysm and Cyprian 't is like learned it of him who was as the Author calls him his great Master Judg Reader whether this be fair and equal dealing 2. His other Exception which he never learned from his great Master Mr. Tombes who was too wise to urge it when he opposed the Testimony of Cyprian Examen Sec. 7. pag. 10. is because there is good ground to question whether this was Cyprian's and sixty-six Bishops Conclusion And why so 1. Because we meet with no such Council and that is strange for one that hath launched as he hath done into the vast Ocean of Antiquity neither yet can it appear where it was held Something must be sayd though it be but meer wrangling Well I perceive the Ancient Fathers that lived next after Cyprian were dim-sighted and could not see what good ground there was to question whether ever Cyprian had such a Council Had they had the perspicacity of this Author they would never have retained so venerable an esteem of it as is evident they had in their frequent and respective quotations of it As Nazianzen Orat 3. in S. Lavacrum Chrysost Hom. ad Neophit Ambros in Luc. and Hieronimus Lib. 3. Dialog Contr. Pelag. and Austin in very many places and no less weakness is there in what follows viz. And if Austin's Argument before mentioned be good to prove an Apostolical Tradition because no Council had determined it it concludes against any such Council Reply A pittiful mistake or misunderstanding Austin's Words which are Quod universa tenet Ecclesia c. That which is universally received and practised in the Church and had not its first Institution from some Council The Author should have markt that but hath been ever retained may be believed to be an Apostolical Tradition which indeed is an undeniable Position and being applyed by Austin to the point in hand seems to be a Demonstration of the Apostolicalness of Infant-Baptism Austin therefore calls it an Apostolical Tradition because it was alwayes practised in the Church and had not its first Institution from Councils neither in Cyprian's Council nor any one else being of greater Antiquity than any of them Neither can any man name when it began since the Apostles and for that reason we cannot otherwise conceive rationally of it than that it had its first Original from them I shall only add those remarkable Words of Mr. Philpot the Martyr in his Letter to his fellow-sufferer that scrupled Infant-Baptism which with the Scripture-Arguments he used proved so effectual that as Mr. Fox in his Book of Martyrs tells us the dissatisfied Person came thereby to be established in the doctrine of Infant-Baptism and dyed in the Belief of its warrantableness I can declare saith Mr. Philpot out of Ancient Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours and then cites Origen and Cyprian out of Austins 28th Epistle to Jerom where are these words viz Cyprian did not make any new Decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his own fellow-Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully Baptized These Authorities saith that famous Martyr a little before his death I do alledg not to ty the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but lies for them and new-Imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment And so I shall leave the Author to his Boasting in what follows and the impartial Reader to judg whether our Testimonies from Antiquity be forged and fabulous as he would render them only I must not let pass an Objection which he starts and which is usually made by us which he had better have left Dormant than to give so slight an Answer to it Objection It is sayd That by Tertullian's opposing it it may seem that there were some that practised it in the 3d Century and can it be supposed that any did so except it had been warranted by such Apostolical Tradition Observe Reader the answer which he gives Answer It is granted Tertullian did oppose it But who it was that did assert it and whether upon any such account as supposed is not mentioned it will be on their part to prove the one and the other Reply 1. We gather from this Answer that the Author cannot have the face to deny it was practised in the 3d Century for if Tertullian did Oppose it it must be supposed it was Practised else
Antichristian Encroachments of Presbyters Bishops Synods When Novatus from an ordinary Priest was so ambitious to be made a Bishop opposed Cornelius the lawful Bishop of Rome and by ungodly means set up himself Bishop after he had also disturb'd the Bishoprick of Cyprian and for his wickedness was at last condemned by a Synod And for the other Donatus he set himself against the lawful Bishop of Carthage and he and his adherents were found lyars and afterward turned cruel Persecutors destroying all Churches that were not of their mind 4. That they Baptized again those whose first Baptism they had ground to doubt but not because they were against Infant-Baptism but for other reasons Of the Witness pretended to be born by the Ancient Britains COnfidence is a great matter but when the groundlesness of it is discovered it doth not in the least advantage a cause but reflect shame upon the owners thereof and truly our Antagonist hath not wanted it thoroughout all his Discourse And there remains yet a high degree of it in this pretence of his that the Ancient Britains were also against Infant-Baptism for in all the Volumes of History relating to this Island he can find but one slender hint to fasten a Conjecture for it is no more that the Ancient Britains were of his side and that is from a passage which he finds in Fabian's Cronicle which you shall hear by and by Know therefore that in the year Anno 596 Austin was sent from Gregory Bishop of Rome with near fourty more to preach the Gospel to the Inhabitants of this Island who were then Pagans and as Vestegan saith without the knowledg of God serving and Sacrificing unto their Idols of Thor Woden Friga It pleased God to make them in a short time instrumental to convert Ethelbert then King of Kent Now after he was Baptized into the Faith of Christ with an innumerable company more Regis ad exemplum The foresaid Austin with the concurrence of some others as Mellitus and Justus two sent as Coadjutors from Gregory assembled and gathered together some of the British Bishops and Doctors who were then dwelling in Wales to which place the Britains had long before been driven and there Professed the Christian Faith and worshipped God in purity In this Assembly Austin charged them that they should preach with him the Word of God to the English-men and also that they should reform certain Rites and usages in their Church specially for that of keeping Easter-Day Baptizing after the manner of Rome and such other like To this the Britains would not agree refusing to leave the custom which they so long had continued without the assent of them all which used the same After that Austin gathered another Synod to the which came seven Bishops of Britain with the wisest Men of that famous Abbie of Bangor who took offence at Austin's Lordly carriage never rising up out of his Seat nor giving them that respect they looked for Fox Acts and Monuments 1. Book p. 154. But Fabian expresseth himself otherwise as the Author notes thus viz. Then he said to them since you will not assent to my Hosts generally assent you to me especially in three things The first is that you keep Easter in due form and time as is ordained The second that you give Christendom to Children And the third that you preach to the Saxons as I have exhorted you and all the other debate I shall suffer you to amend amongst your selves but saith Fabian they would not To whom then Austin said that if they would not take peace with their Brethren they should receive War with their Enemies c. From their denyal to comply with Austin's Propositions whereof that was one the giving Christendom to Children the Author doth confidently conclude they were against Infant Baptism But that there is no sufficient ground hence for such a Conclusion will appear 1. First Because no such thing is mentioned by other Historians as Beda Cretensis in Polychron Huntingtonensis which write of this matter they speak only in general Mr. Fox relates it viz. of Baptizing after the manner of Rome without mentioning Children Secondly Because Fabian is nigro carbone notatus lookt upon as no faithful Historian and I find Mr. Fox in his Martyrology refuse to give credit to his Relation in other things as he doth not observe his words of giving Christendom to Children in the Story which he gives us Thirdly Neither do Fabian's Words import that they were any more against Baptizing Children than Preaching of the Gospel for they refused to do both to the Saxons and that possibly because they would confine their labours to their own Diocess and attend their own Flocks or rather because they would not Subject themselves to the Bishop of Rome for they told Austin to his Face they owed him no Subjection and to the imperious command of such an upstart proud Prelat as Austin was between whom and them there had passed some heat of words which made them rise in disdain and departed thence in great displeasure Fourthly Or they might refuse to give Christendom to Children after Austin's mode with the corrupt Rites and Ceremonies in use by him For other Historians express the Injunction given that it should be after the Roman Manner Fiftly But to put it out of all doubt that the Words of Fabian was not Austin's but rather Fabian's own Paraphrase upon them appears by what we find in the Preface to Fabian that what he relates of this matter he hath it from Beda if therefore no such passage can be found there then we are sure the Author is mistaken in his Conjecture and it is a great presumption to lay such stress upon a doubtful passage that may admit of several interpretations We shall now give the Reader an account what Beda saith to the thing viz. Dicebat autem eis quod in multis quidem nostrae consuetndini immô universalis ecclesiae contraria geritis tamen si in tribus his mihi obtemperare vultis ut Pascha suo tempore celebretis ut Ministerium Baptizandi quo Deo renascimur juxta morem sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis ut genti Anglorum una nobiscum praedicetis Verbum Domini caeteraque agitis quamvis moribus nostris contraria aequanimiter cuncta tolerabimus At illi nihil horum se facturos neq Bed Hist Ecclesiast Lib. 2. c. 2. illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros esse respondebant In English thus But he said unto them in asmuch as you do contrary to our custom yea to the custom of the Universal Church nevertheless if yee will obey me only in these three things sc That you keep Easter in its proper time Administer Baptism whereby we are born again to God after the manner of the Holy Church of Rome and the Apostolical-Church and preach the Word of God together with us unto the English Nation we will patiently bear all other things