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
all rather judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denyed to none that is born of men By the answer of Augustine to Bonifacius Tom. 2. Epist 23. Enquiring concerning the truth of Sureties in affirming the unknown faith of little ones and promising for them it will appear to the Reader that the Baptisme of any little ones offered to baptisme is defended by him Although they were not brought that they might be regenerated to eternall Life by Spirituall grace but because they think by this remedy I use the words of Augustine to retain or receive temporall health Iohn Gerhard Loc. Theolog. Tom. 4. de Baptis Cap. 7. Sect. 4. defends the practise of the Ancients baptizing the Children of unbeleevers And the words of Mr Samuel Rutherford Scot in his Book lately put forth in the English tongue intituled A peaceable and temperate plea c. 12. arg 7. seemes to mee to propend too much to this opinion The words are these If then the Iewes in Pauls time were holy by Covenant howbeit for the present the Sonnes were branches broken off for unbeliefe much more seeing God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles and is become a God to us and to our seed the seed must be holy with holinesse of the chosen nation and holinesse externall of the Covenant notwithstanding the Father and Mother were as wicked as the Iewes who slew the Lord of glory And the grave confutation of Brownists by Rathband Part. 3. Page 50. Fourthly Children may be lawfully admitted to Baptism though both their Parents be prophane if those who are instead of Parents to them do require Baptisme for them and give their promise to the Church for their religious Education seeing they may lawfully be accounted within Gods Covenant if any of their Ancestors in any Generation were faithfull Exod. 20.5 Lastly if this Argument be not of force Christ commandeth first to Disciple and then to baptize those that are Discipuled to exclude Infants from Baptime neither will the argument be of force from 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eat to exclude Infants from the Lords Supper for by the like clusion this argument may be rejected by saying that the speech of the Apostle is not exclusive and is to be understood of receiving the Lords Supper by Persons grown onely yea verily neither will the argument be of force from the institution of the Supper Mat. 26.26 27. therefore only beleevers are to be admitted to the Lords Supper If any reply But the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. and 11. hath declared that the institution is exclusive the fame may be said of the institution of Baptisme from the following Argument To this second Argument of Mr T. out of Mat. 28.19 for the Affirmative Animadver That men of ripe years onely are to be baptized the other being onely negative to put off Arguments for childrens baptism I say that I verily expected Mr T. would not have urged it so curtedly carelesly or so scatteringly Curtedly For he speakes so abruptly touching the businesse of Bishop Fidus p. 25. That I can hardly divine what his meaning is I conjecture this answer will serve 1. That God himselfe puts the cause and makes the premisses wider than the effect or conclusion 2 Pet. 3.9 1 Tim. 2.4 Yet he doth not warrant us to apply comforts or seales to all 2. That Cyprian in all likelihood speaks to the point in hand That as circumcision was not denyed to any children of Jewish parents that were members of that Church so Baptisme is not to be denyed to any so born of men that is are the children of Parents reputed true members of the Church Carelesly for first he saith p. 24. Iohn 4.2 Where it is said That Iesus made more disciples then that he baptized first it is said that he made disciples then baptize So Mr T. Now we must needs say that here is a grosse falshood For that text Iohn 4.2 saith expresly Iesus baptized none at all Secondly Mr. T. saith p. 24. The ordinary rule is make disciples that is by preaching the Gospell make disciples as appears Mark 16.15 and baptise them to wit whom you have made disciples So Mr T. here Yet in another place of his Exercitation Mr. T. doth not forget but confesseth that Mar. 16.15 is not make disciples but onely preach the Gospell And so Mark makes not more of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples as the Anabaptists would have it but onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preach the Gospell Scatteringly Not onely floteing so much paper with the Inke of Syllogisme under Syllogisme and Argument under Syllogisme as if Mat. 28.19 did not indeed in any shew serve his turn without much lifting but also in scattering such speeches to the great disgrace of Anabaptisme For Mr T. saith p. 25. That Augustine was wont to take out his proof for In-infant-Baptisme in his disputations against the Pelagians from Cyprians 59 Epistle to Fidus. So that by this Mr T. confesseth that the Pelagians of old were the men that denyed Infant-Baptisme which brought to mind that great Iames Arminius was an Anabaptist who had that and other dangerous principles from that unsound Castalio Mr G. Philips his Reply and to T. Lamb. p. 137 and that of Master George Philips of Water Town in New-England That the first that denyed Infants Baptisme and opposed the practise of the Churches in this case was one Auxentius an Arrian with his adherents that denyed the Godhead of Christ who dyed about 380 yeeres after Christ as Mr Philpot the Martyr of Jesus noteth in an Epistle of his written out of prison to a fellow prisoner of his about the point So Mr Fox relateth in his book of Martyrs ad Ann. 1555. Bullinger affirmeth the same Tom. 3. Serm. 8. Decad. quint. After him the Pelagians and Donatists opposed it against whom Augustine beside others wrote and defended it The Pelagians denied it upon this ground That Infants had no Originall sinne And in Bernards time one Peter Abilaird among many other grosse opinions wherein he saith he was Magis Arrius quam Arrius rather more then Arrius then bare Arrius held this also that Infants were not to be baptized Ep. 190. So Mr Philips But to come to Mr T. his Argument out of Mat. 28.19 The summe of it is this Exercitat §. 15. That Christs institution is That those only should be baptized that are made disciples Mat. 28.19 But beleevers Infants are not disciples Ergo. To the place of Mat. 28.19 That is Animadver the proof of the Major We have answered somewhat afore Chap. 1. of our Animadvers p. 7. which we intreat the patient reader to ponder over againe more we have answered but now by comparing Mark 16.15 who renders it barely preach the Gospell which the reader cannot but esteem of more weight then all the interpretations not onely of all Anabaptists but of all men We adde now
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
Justin Martyrs 2. To the mention of Irenaeus we say Resp ad Qu. 115. ad orthod that this Argument is weak also For first Justin Martyr is put in Anno 130. after Christ And they say he was martyred not till Anno 165 * Helvic yea some say not till 169 * Buchol And Irenaeus was a Bishop Anno 170 and therefore must needs be famous many yeers before Justin Martyrs death and therefore well might they quote one another in their books But to allow more then Mr. T. objects namely as some object that Justin Martyr in the said place cals Irenaeus martyr when as he was martyred long after Justin Martyrs death We answer that if that word Martyr were not put in by some late Scribe since for the honour and distinction of the man however in the English the word martyr be taken yet usually in Latin and more constantly in the Greek it signifies onely a witnesse And Irenaeus was a famous witnesse to the truth by pen and profession in Justin Martyrs time though not by blood Again if Martyr be taken for a sufferer yet not alwayes for a sufferer by death Isaac is said to be persecuted by Ishmael onely mocking him Gal. 4.29 Gen. 21.9 Which kind of oppositions and worse Irenaeus no doubt met with in those persecuting times of his and of Justins as fore-runners of the effusion of their blood 3. To the mention of Origen in his Qu. ad orthodox Resp ad qu. 82. 86. we say that Chronologers and Historians those few we could cast a look upon are so uncertain about the life and death of these two Fathers as is wonderfull Bucholcer It is confessed by some that Origen and Justin Martyr were within some 14 or 15 yeers one of another And we heard afore that some made Justin Martyr far longer lived then others did now if indeed as who knows to the contrary either Origen was born sooner or Justin Martyr lived longer but a few yeers Justin Martyr might well hear of Origen who was a great Scholar very young even before he was 18 yeers old and wrote soon and much in all 7000 books as Hieroni reports I confesse for my part I speak my conscience if that be all the objection I should sooner believe mens writings quoting one another as sufficient testimonies that they lived some yeers at the same time when it is neer confest by Authors then to doubt of such because some Chronologers or Historians cipher or say them to be 14 or 15 yeers after one another But where doth these Questions ad orthodoxos quote Origen we can find but two One in the Answer to the 82. Quest on which let any ingenuous man look and observe how he is named if he in the last close of all and the fulnesse of the Answer without mention of the supposed Origen and he will say verily this was but some marginall Note since Justin Martyr thrust into the Text. The other place is in the beginning of the Answer to the 86. Question and therefore very likely to be thrusted too into the text For let a man put out the first words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is expounded by Origen and yet the sence will be full thus That to a man that is skilfull in the Hebrew tongue there is an interpretation of all the Hebrew names in the Scripture Which is further strengthened because in the close it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is if you consult that interpretation not that Origen if he Besides a man that is critically skilled in the Greek which I professe not he would haply examine if Origen be here quoted first why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man is needlesly put in And whether it be so proper to construe the verb passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is interpreted by Origen there being no praeposition according to the usuall rule And lastly whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not some other word signifying some other thing then a proper name to fignifie Origen We could give instance but for haste But to give Mr. T. an Objection which he doth not make to wit that the Qu. ad orthodox are not thought to be Justin Martyrs because in them there is such contradictions contrary to what is said in Justin Martyrs works as Mr. T. his R. Cook observeth as that in the 52. Qu. ad orthodox it is said the Witch 1 Sam. 28. did delude the eyes of all the beholders that they might think it was Samuel But in his Dialog-cum Tryphone the contrary is affirmed Qu. 142. ad Orthodox it is said that it was a created Angel that talked with Jacob but in his Dialogue cum Tryphone he proves him to be an uncreated Angel To which we answer That so learned Tossanus observes upon Augustine that he sometimes contradicts himself in those books which he accounts the very book of Augustus M. T. knew learned Mr. P. who would say Can any meer man write much and not in any thing contradict himself And for the instances they are not of moment As one Angel talked with Jacob so he saw many more There might be a materiall body patcht up by the devil according to the sphere of angelicall power and yet he must delude the eyes of the beholders too to make them think it was Samuels reall body Mr. T. goes on against those Qu. ad orthodox Now saith he what doth this Bastard Treatise say Answ These are sesquipedalia verba high words For first by this we have said it may appear that it is not yet so out of doubt that the Qu. ad Orthodoxos are not Justin Martyrs Secondly there are failings enough in the other Treatises of Justin Martyrs by which these Questions are judged Thirdly that there are not wanting men of great learning that think the said Questions may be accounted of like Authoritie with the rest of the Treatises though they were not truly Justin Martyrs And Scultetus saith that though this Treatise be not Justin Martyrs yet not to be rejected there being many Gemmes though mixt with some chaffe And H. Grotius on Matth. 19.14 quotes them with as great respect as other Fathers yea so quotes this 56. qu. Well and what doth Mr. T. say to this Treatise which he so cals Bastard This He translated all the whole 56t Question and Answer named Justin Martyrs ad Orthodox * The Qu. and Answer of the named Justin Martyr in full as Mr. T. translates it is this Qu. If Infants dying have neither praise nor blame by works what is the difference in the resurrection of those that have been baptized by others and have done nothing and of those that have not been baptized and in like manner have done nothing Answ This is the difference of the baptized from the not baptized that the baptized obtien good things meaning at the resurrection by baptisme but the unbaptized obtein not good things And they
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
T. well knows subordinate things are not contrary Christ regenerates therefore doth he not do it by his Ordinances Word Baptisme c We have heard afore that though Christ be the Author of our salvation yet it is said we are born again by water and the Spirit And that for the conjunction of the signe and thing signified the thing signified is called by the name of the signe We adde Ephes 5.26.1 Pet. 1.23 where it is said that we are sanctified by the washing of water by the Word And we are born again by the Word of God and yet we know Christ by his Spirit is the Author of these 3 Others of the approved Ancients as Commentators on Irenaeus call baptisme by the name of regeneration Nazianzen cals Baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the laver of regeneration or of the new-birth Nazianz. Orat. 402. in Sanct. Bapt. Augustine saith As by the first man men are born in sin and death so by Christ renascuntur they are born again in or into righteousnesse and eternall life in or through baptisme Aug. lib. de Bapt. hab Cons Ambrose saith God the omnipotent Father who hath regenerated thee of water and the holy Spirit Ambros de Sacram. Hieronimus The bloody bodies of Infants are washed as soon as they are born so the spirituall generation stands in need of the saving laver Hieron lib. 4. Ezek. ca. 16. More might be alledged but these enough to clear the businesse in hand that Irenaeus meant by being born-again or regenerated Baptisme But Mr. T. objects Mr. T. EXAMEN Sect. 4. p. 7. that Irenaeus saith Christ was fifty yeers old aâ— he had received it from those that conversed with John the Apostle and thereby Mr. Tombes would blemish Irenaeus his testimonie We answer Animad First men have their mistakes else they were not men but as Angels Secondly Mr. T. referred us to far worse Authors full of superstitions in Scham before And his Ludovicus Vives and his Walafridus we and Vossius too have noted before for their grosse expressions and mistakes Thirdly which is mainly to the point Irenaeus saith Infants may be born again that is baptized as from himself though he reports the whole age of Christ from others who if they wrote his age by ciphers in after-times fifty might easily be mistaken for thirty The third and last Author we will urge from this first age TERTVLLIAN or first hundred yeers or century next following the Apostles time is Tertullian Whom Helvicus puts in the latter end of the age afore said namely in the yeer after Christ 195. which was as about the 95 yeer after the death of John the Evangelist But the same Helvicus saith this of him put in that yeer out of Eusebius and Hieron That he put forth his book of Praescriptions and that he was the third Latin Writer And Bucholcerus mentions him as famous about the yeer after Christ 208 that is 108. after St. John that is but about thirteen yeers after the time set down by Helvicus For he saith that about that time Hieron in Catalogo Cyprian as Hieron testifies did ascribe so much to Tertullians writings that when he called for one of his Authors or Writers he would say Da Magistrum that is Give me my Master when he meant Tertullian Therefore he wrote divers yeers afore The words of Tertullian to the point in hand of Infant-Baptisme Lib. de Anim. cap. 39. 40. are these Hinc enim Apâ—st c. that is For hence also the Apostle affirmeth that of either sex sanctified are procreated those that are holy as by the prerogative of SEED so by the discipline or rule of institution But they were born unclean as if by this neverthelesse he would have it understood that the children of beleevers are designatos the designed ones of holinesse and thereby also of salvation that these pledges of hope might patronage those marriages which he had judged to be kept undissolved Otherwise he had minded the Lords determination Vnlesse one be born of water and of the Spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdome of God that is He shall not be holy So every soul is counted to be in Adam till he be recounted to be in Christ and so long to be impure till he be recounted Thus Tertullian Whence note first by the way how the opinion of Antiquity touching that place 1 Cor. 7.14 is contrary to Mr. Tombes his opinion Secondly directly to the point in hand of the Baptisme of the children of beleevers he holds forth these Notions First the birthright of beleevers Infants the parents and children being both under that promise I am the God of thee and thy seed They are saith Tertullian by the Sanctification of one of the Parents procreated holy partly by the praerogative of the SEED I am the God of thee beleeving Abraham and of thy seed Gen. 17.7 partly by the discipline of Institution THEREFORE thou shalt keep my Covenant to give the first seal to every male of thy seed Gen. 17.9 Or Act. 2. The promise is to you and you being called to your children also So that Tertullian meanes that the children of beleevers are reputatively and federally holy Which is the more plain by that which follows of counted in Adam and recounted in Christ Secondly The capacity of children of grace and Salvation and consequently of the seal for the deeds and their seals follow the right of the inheritance so all along the Scripture as we have shewed in part I say Tertullian shews childrens capacity of grace 1. In mentioning their being holy For it s in vain to talke of accounting holy if none may be holy yea therefore God will have beleevers children indefinitly accounted holy because he hath made some holy in their childhood Isaac Iacob Samuel Iohn Baptist those Mar. 10. c. 2. In mentioning that place Iohn 3.5 in relation to children Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit c. From all which we may perceive that Tertullian grounds Infant-Baptisme upon Scripture not upon unwritten Tradition Nor is it my opinion onely that this place of Tertullian is for Infant-baptisme but of learned Vossius too whom Mr. T. so oft quotes with respect For Vossius by this place proves that it was the mind of Tertullian in that noted place of Chap. 18. H. D. Mr T. in his 10th Argument of his book De Baptismo That Infants should be Baptized which some alleadge against Infant-baptism but is indeed for it Tertullians words are these Itaeque pro cujusque personae c. Therefore according to every persons condition disposition and age the delay of baptisme is more profitable but especially concerning little children For what necessity is there * Those words between Junius saith may be left out Mr T. in his 10th Argument leaves them out But in the best Editions of Tertullian they are in Vossius takes them in
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
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
procure health to their bodies as is plain by his words epist 23. ad Bonifacium Nec illud te moveat quod quidam non ea fide ad Baptismum percipiendum parvulos ferunt vt gratia spiritali ad vitam regenerentur aeternam sed quod eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere aut recipere sanitatem non enim propterea illi non regenerantur quia non ab illis hac intentione offeruntur celebrantur enim per eos necessaria ministeria By which last words you may perceive how corrupt Augustine was in this matter so as to excuse if not to justifie their fact who made use of Baptisme in so prophane a manner as to cure diseases by it which is no marvaile if it be true which is related of the approbation that was given of the Baptisme used by Athanasius in play amongst boyes 5. You may consider that in the same Epistle when Bonifacius pressed Augustine to shew how Sureties could be excused from lying who being asked of the Childs faith answered He doth beleeve for even in Baptisme of Infants they thought in all ages it necessary that a profession of faith go before He defends that act in this absurd manner Respondetur credere propter fidei Sacramentum and thence he is called a believer because he hath the Sacrament of faith Which as it is ridiculous playing with words in so serious a matter before God so it is a senslâ—sse answer sith the interrogation was of the Childs faith before it was baptized and the answer was given before and therefore it cannot be understood of believing by receiving the Sacrament of faith which came after 6. It is apparent out of the same Epistle that Infants were then admitted to baptisme whether they were the children of believers or not it was no matter with what intention they brought them nor whose children were brought yea it was counted a worke of charity to bring any children to baptisme and in this case the faith of the whole Church was counted a sufficient supplement of the defect of the parents or bringers faith So that whereas the present defenders of Infant-Baptisme pretend Covenant-holynesse a priviledge of beleevers it was no such matter in the time of the Ancients but they baptized any Infants even of Infidels upon this opinion That Baptisme did certainly give grace to them and if they dyed without Baptisme they did perish And thus I grant that it is true the Epistle of Cyprian is cited and approved by Augustine But neither is Augustine to be approved for approving it nor doth it advantage your tenet that you have cited his citation of it Thus farr Mr T. his long answer to Mr M. short quotation of Augustine Wee answer and Animadver First to that That the Authority of Augustin was it which carryed the baptisme of Infants in the following ages almost without controul we answer three things First that Augustine flourished not till long after the first age from that that was next after the Apostles which was the time Mr T. said afore wherein baptisme of Infants began to be in use as an unwritten Tradition For Mr T. saith Augustine flourished not till 405 or 410 years after Christ So that his authority prevailed not but in his and the times following him But what was it that carryed the Baptisme of Infants the 300 or 400 years afore Augustin For all that time it was frequent as we have abundantly shewed out of good Antiquity Secondly if any after were carryed by Augustin to hold Infant-baptisme sure they heard or read Augustin arguing the thing by Scripture and divine reason * As against the Donatists Pelag. c. And then doubtlesse they were carryed by the Scriptures and Reasons he urged and so not by the authority of the man ** Mr T. himself confesseth in a matter of 40 lines after that Councels c. that did depend on Augustine depended on his Arguments Augustin himselfe had taught them better who in his works professedly rejects some of the Fathers when he thought they went not along with the Scriptures Thirdly It cannot be said that Augustines authority did in his time carry Infant-baptisme in a manner without controle seeing he had so much bickering with the Pelagians about it who under some notion did contend against it as wee shewed afore 2 To Mr T. his quoting of Walafridus Strabo we answer first That seeing that author is in such credit with Mr T. in that he quotes him so oft we expect he should be believed as well for as as against us Now Walafridus is for us against Mr T. in these things 1. About Imposition of hands that it did suppose baptisme which Mr T. denyed upon the discussion of Heb. 6.2 in his 14. Sect. of his Exercitation But Walafridus affirmes it De rebus Ecclesiasticis chap. 26. sub initium Saith he * Primis temporibus impositione manuum baptismum confirmari solere In the first times Baptisme was wont to be confirmed with Imposition of hands 2. About Athanasius that in Athanasius his time to his knowledge there was Baptism of little children Mr. T. doubts of it in his Examen Sect. 6. But Walfride shews us that Legitur quoque in ultimo Ecclesiasticae historiae libro Athanasius adhuc puer c. That saith he we read in the last book of Ecclesiasticall history that Athanasius being but a little child did act the imitation of Baptisme among his childish companions which being done with recitall of the words that the baptizer did aske and the baptized answered when those able to speak were baptized Alexander the chiefe Minister of Alexandria knowing the same judged they should not be re-baptized but ratified with confirmation Thus Walafridus 3. About Infant Baptisme which Mr T. denies but Walafridus Strabo quotes many authorities and antiquities for it As that it In concilio Gerundensi unius diei infans si in discrimine sit baptizari jubetur In that Councill it was commanded that an Infant one day old if in danger of death should be baptized Divers passages he hath to the like purpose 2. We answer to the Quotation of Walafridus Strabo that he faulters and is much faulty in the thing he is quoted for For first He calls the times of Augustine who is but of late in comparison of many Ancients we have quoted Prima tempora that is the first times for Walafridus quotes Augustins practise that was not baptized till of ripe years to proove that in the first times as Walfridus calls them men were not baptized till able to know well and make profession when as Augustin himself as we have shewd and Mr T. hath confessed did refer himselfe to ancienter times a great deal as to Cyprian that was almost 200 years afore him for the practise of baptizing Infants 2. Walafrid saith illis solummodo c. that is To them onely the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given who were of
he recites Monimus quoting Augustine And at the end of Fulgentius his workes are printed at Basil together with them Augustines or rather Prospers booke of answers to articles imposed upon him and some bodies 6 bookes Hypognosticon in answer to the Calumnies of the Pelagians Now whether all this may argue Fulgentius his relyance on Augustines arguments let the reader judge For Mr T. to say Prosper Fulgentius and those three Councels rested on Augustines wordes and to bring us no instances or to say they rested on his arguments and to bring us no paralell of both their arguments is to dictate not to prove Or to say they relyed on his arguments and after to say they relyed on his wordes is an expression of inconsistencies Or to say they relyed on his arguments is improbable Likely they might rely upon arguments by him used but not as his but as divine out of the Scriptures where Augustine urged them But for Mr T. to say they relyed altogether on Augustines arguments is impossible for Mr T. to make good to us or for us to believe of those worthyes For the Councells Mr T. doth not intimate much lesse Cipher to us which for there are many of those names he means If he mean those Coetanian convented in the same 416 year after Christ Reus Bucholc Perk. when about by consent of Chronologers Pelagianisme began to be condemned in Councils and Augustine had now a while been famous Wee answer it is true that in this Councill of Carthage Pelagius and Coelestius the Hereticks are condemned but by notable Scripture-arguments without the least mention of Augustine And it is true that that Councels Epistle to P. Innocent the first and that P. Innocents Epistle backe to that Councill are by some body put among the Epistles of Augustine and are there the 90. and 91. Ep. But neither doth P. Innocent in his Epistle take the least particular notice of Augustine nor do the Councill in their Epistle Nor do I know whether Mr T. doth confide that Augustine was at this Council by the names subscribed thus To the most blessed and most honoured brother Innocent the Pope Aurelius Numidius Rusticâ—anus c. who were present in the Councill of Carthage Therein being then Aurelius Bishop of Carthage as appears in the Epistle of the aforesaid Council of Milevis to the Emperours Archad and Honor. But when Augustine Bpp of Hippon is named at a Council he is called Augustinus And if there be two of the same name at a Council they are both named with alius As at this Council of Carthage Restitutus alius Restitutus and Victor alius Victor But here is but once Aurelius and no Augustinus As for the said Council of Milevis it is true that in their Epistle to P. Innocent there is among the rest expressed Silvanus Valentinus Aurelius Donatus Restitutus Lucianus Alypius Augustinus Placentius c And that that Council also was convented against Pelagius and Coelestius But we finde not either in the Acts of that Council or in the Epistle or c. that there is any more particular notice of Augustine then of any of the rest much lesse of any of his arguments against the Pelagians or of his urging any one argument Yea Bucholcerus saith that after these two Councils viz. in Anno 417. Augustine began to refute the Errors of Pelagius By this Augustine should rather learn at these Councills to dispute against Pelagianisme then they to rely on him In the next Council of Carthage in order of the printed Councils though Augustine be there yet any Dispute of Pelagianisme is not there In the seventh Council of Carthage Bin. alias a part or 2 Session of the sixt we finde but five titles of chapters or canons But they say there were recited 105 whereof a great part were those at the third Council of Carthage and in the Council of Milevis as they say in the title of this seventh or sixth Council But that which they call the third Council of Carthage they date in the title to be in Anno 438 which was saith Bucholcerus 8 years after Augustines death If they mean that Council of Carthage and Milevis of the same 416 year after Christ to them we have answered already If the residue of the Canons of this seventh Council of Carthage are as the notes on it tell us and I rather believe recited in the following African Council convented in the time of Boniface and Celestin there indeed that Council is in diverse Canons against Pelagius and Coelestius too and that about baptisme of Infants which wee mentioned afore at large But there is no mention at all of Augustines persons or rrguments there and is after that which Mr T. Quotes For the Council of Arles if Mr T. meanes the second It was too ancient being under Siricius who was Anno 385. I say too ancient to be swayed by Augustine who was not famous according to Mr T. till Anno 405. or 410. against Pelagianisme if there had been in it any debate about it as there was none If Mr T. meane the third Council of Arles this was too young and of too later times being Anno 461 or as others 514 under P. John 1. for Augustine to be there Nor was there need of his arguments for there are but few Canons and none about Pelagianisme It is true one Faustus writes an Epistle to one Lucidus a Pelagian against his Errours which he had vented in a book which Caesarinus Avitus and Johannes Antiochenus confuted in writing and this Council approves Faustus his Epistle in neither of all which is there the least mention that I can find of Augustines name or arguments If Mr T. think I have not said enough or not punctually to his 3 Councils and two Fathers let him blame his non-quotations and generall and confused intimations Thus of Fulgentius Prosper and the three Councils Next Mr T. objects that Augustine being counted as one of the four Doctors of the Church like the four Evangelists EXAMEN §. 8. his opinion was the rule of the Churches judgement and the Schooles determination as to the great hurt of Gods Church Luther and others have been of late Answer Animadver To that of Augustines respect and authority in matters of dispute we have spoken once and again that it hath not beene so high as Mr T. his elevation There were sundry Antagonists and some honestly minded as Acrius c. did pritty well keep Augustine Hierom c. from too much hight and extravagancy as the Calvanists did the Lutherans and like instances might begiven of later times But Augustine EXAMEN Ibid. saith Mr T. proved originall sinne from the baptisme of Infants and so did the Council of Milevis anathematizing them that did deny it Ergo great was the sway of Augustines authority We answer Animadver having spoken of the Councills afore and of their Scripture arguments that Augustine proved Infant-baptisme from
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
T. his allegation of the Lord Brookes and Daniel Rogers that Mr T. did not dreame We say that it is possible two more may dreame as well as Mr. T. we say two more for to his c. And others else-where we can distinctly answere nothing where nothing is alleadged But for the two particularly named giving their bookes all due respect Robert Lord Brookes of Episcopacy Sect. 2. chap. 7 p. 96. of 2. edit 1. The bare recitall of the Lord Brookes words are a full answer which are these I will not I cannot take on me to defend That men usually call Anabaptisme Yet I conceive that Sect is Twofold Some of them hold Free-will Community of all things deny Magistracy and refuse to Baptize their Children These truly are such Hereticks or Atheists that I question whether any Divine should honour them so much as to dispute with them much rather sure should Alexanders sword determine here as of olde at the Gordian knot where it acquired this Motto Qâ—ae soivere non possum dissecabo What I cannot unty I will cut asunder There is another fort of them who only deny Baptisme to their Children till they come to yeeres of discretion and then they baptize them but in other things they agree with the Church of England Truly These men are much to be pitied And I could heartily wish That before they be stigmatiz'd with that opprobrious brand of Schismatick the Truth might be cleered to them For I conceive to those that hold we may goe no farther than Scripture for Doctrine or Discipline it may be very easie to erre in this Point now in hand since the Scripture seemes not to have cleerly determined This particular The Anaglogy which Baptisme now hath with Circumcision in the old Law is a fine Rhetoricall Argument to illustrate a Point well proved before but I somewhat doubt whether it be proofe enough for that which some would prove by it since beside the vast difference in the Ordinances the persons to be Circumcised are stated by a positive Law so expresse that it leaves no place for scruple but it is farre otherwise in Baptisme Where all the designation of Persons fit to be partakers for ought I know is only Such as beleeve For this is the qualification that with exactest search I find the Scripture requires in persons to be baptized And This it seemes to require in All such persons Now how Infants can be properly said to beleeve I am not yet fully resolved Yet many things prevaile very much with me in this point First For ought I could ever learne It was the constant custome of the purest and most Primitive Church to baptize Infants of beleeving Parents For I could never find the beginning and first Rise of this practise Whereas it is very easie to tracke Heresies to their first Rising up and setting foot in the Church Againe I find all Churches even the most strict have generally beene of this judgement and practise yea though there have beene in all ages some that much affected novelty and had parts enough to discusse and cleere what they thought good to preach yet was this scarce ever questioned by men of Note till within these Last Ages And sure the constant judgement of the Churches of Christ is much to be honoured and heard in all things that contradict not Scripture Nor can I well cleere that of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children Vncleane but now are they Holy I know some interpret it thus If it be unlawfull for a beleever to live in wedlock with one that beleeveth not Then have many of you lived a long time in unlawfull marriage and so your very Children must be Illegitimate and These also must be cast off as Base borne But it is not so for Your Children are Holy that is Legitimate I confesse This seemes a very faire Interpretation yet I much question Whether This be all the Apostle meanes by that phrase Holy especially when I reflect on the preceding words The Vnbeleever is Sanctified by the beleever Nor yet can I beleeve any Inherent Holinesse is here meant but rather That Relative Church-Holinesse which makes a man capable of admission to Holy Ordinances and so to Baptisme Thus farre the Lord Brookes where he is against Master Tombes touching the meaning of 1 Cor. 7.14 And touching Infant Baptisme But the question is whether Master Tombes be not more then a Catapaedobaptist namely an Anabaptist for Rebaptizing who so readeth the last page of his exercitation will not thinke that I meerely dreame For there he saith Nor is the assuming of Baptisme in ripe yeeres by those who were washed in Infancy a renoucing of Baptisme as some in their grosse ignorance concâ—it 2. For Master Rogers not daring to play the Astrologer to tell what influence Episcopall wandring Starrs might have upon his Booke Printed in the yeere 1635. having beene once Printed afore but esteeming the man I dare set downe his words also as a full answer to Master Tombes his words are these The fourth and chiefe person yea equall object of Baptisme is the party baptized The fourth person the infant For not onely the Church may and doth baptize her Infants but also adultos grown ones also if any such being bred Pagans and brought within the pale of the Church shall testifie their competent understanding of the new covenant and professe their desire to be sealed with Baptisme for the strengthning of their soule in the faith thereof professe it I say not basely and slightly but with earnestnesse and entirenesse cutting off their haire and nailes and abhorring their Paganisme But the truth is the exercise of the Churches baptisme is upon infants Here the Anabaptists rise up A short touch of the baptism of infants pleading the corruption of such baptisme and urging the first baptisme of catechized ones and confessors of sinne and cravers of the seale upon the worke of the Ministry foregoing in knowledge and faith which can be incident only to adulti or grown ones They alledge that we seale to a blank to no covenant and therefore it 's a nullity Sundry learned men have undertaken to stop their schismatical mouths and to answer their peevish Arguments my scope tends another way in this Treatise so farre as my digression may be veniall I say this for the settling of such as are not wilfull that I take the baptisme of Infants to be one of the most reverend generall and uncontrouled traditions which the Church hath and which I would no lesse doubt of than the Creede to be Apostolicall And although I confesse my selfe yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it yet Reasons for it First Sithence Circumcision was applyed to the infant the eighth day in the Old Tâ—stament Secondly there is no word in the New Testament to infringe the liberty of the Church in it nor speciall reason why we should bereave her of it Thirdly sundry Scriptures
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
the holy Supper to the Disciples 2 Cornelius his and the Gaolers families after the gathering of Churches were not by that numbred to any particular Churches or thereby made particular Churches that we read Now that which exists afore or after a thing without that thing cannot be the forme of that thing 3 That which is common cannot be proper and peculiar But baptisme is common to make men onely visible Christians in generall Therefore it is not proper and peculiar to make them of this or that particular Church And therefore though godly men or their infants have been baptized yet the Churches think according to Scripture that there must be somwhat more expressed to make such to own this or that preaching officer to be their pastor or teacher whom they must obey in the Lord and have in singular respect for the works sake Heb. 13. And to cause that Minister to own them as his flock Act. 20. if he meane not to take upon him a power Apostolicall for latitude to extend to all baptized ones Nor can it be pretended that this Minister baptizing them doth make them of his congregation because the Confession of the Anabaptists h Their confession of faith Artic. 41. set forth by the seven brethren of their fraternities say That any preaching Disciples that are no particular Church Officers or pâ—rsons extraordinarily sent but as considered Disciples are designed by Châ—ist to dispence this Ordinance Which we look upon us as a second fault in discipline following upon the Anabaptists Baptisme For we find not that any baptized others but either they were extraordinary Officer as the Apostles or Evangelists Or else particular Churches Pastours or Teachers Nor is there any thing in the Scriptures alleaged in their Confession but to the same purpose we speak Divine reason also concurs with us For a Disciple as a Disciple is only a member of the universall visible Church And so he can conferre nothing but what hee hath And so bring his brother no further in subjection to Church Ordinances than are administred by the universall visible Church and so can never be censured â—in case of lapse unlesse the universall visible Church concur which can never be And so Church discipline falls to the ground 3 Anabaptists have in many ages admitted generally all that will take up their baptisme Epiphan Anaceph p. 408. E dit Lat. Basil Epiphanius shews us in the fore quoted place That they affirme that for a man to stray in some great sin is nothing God required nothing but that hee should be of their faith Augustine in his fourth booke against the Donatists complains and quotes Cyprian as condoling the same That many Corde in melius non mutato c. That many being not changed in heart that renounce the world in words not in deeds were baptized And in another place speaks of it as an error of some in those times Errant qui pâ—aeter delectum omnes ad baptismum admittunt They erre saith Augustine that admit all to baptisme without any choice or difference And one of the late Anabaptists in a book called the marke or character of the Beast sayth that any man upon confession of sin though hee manifest no signes of grace ought to be baptized Thus of faults in discipline 4 By Anabaptisme have been occasioned many unnecessary disputes 1 Whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to baptize signifies to dip to rantize or to sprinkle whereas they baptized in old time some in their beds a See afore or couches b Clinidia therefore dipped not them The baptismes of Tables Mar. 7.4 here the word cannot signifie dipping The Israelites are sayd to be baptized in the Cloud and the red Sea But they were but sprinkled in the Cloud and not dipped in the Sea 2 Whether those baptized by men erroneous in judgment ought to be re-baptized Aug. against the Donatists 3 Whether there be originall sinne in infants 4 Whether they have faith 5 How long they must stay ere they be baptized c Of these 3 last we heard afore severally upon other occasions whether till three years old or under or till foure years old or over or how long whether till as old as Adeodaâ—us who was 15 at his baptisme as some will or till they be 30 years old which was the age of Christ As some thought in Nazianzens time Thus I have given you a taste of the manner of M. T. his disputing in those foure Arguments by an easier retorting them If M. T. condemne these our arguments retorted of impertinencie or invalidity he must of necessity also condemne his own And for my part if he will doe so I am contented that these foure arguments on both sides should goe for blank and so to leave the dispute where we found it as no great matter being done on either side to argue for or against by producing the errors and mistakes of men which may be laid aside on either side and yet a truth be held by either Though I doe not hereby mean to give away the Question of the lawfulnesse of baptizing believers infants And therefore we goe on to give particular answers to M. T. his foure Arguments aforesaid CHAP. XVI TO M. T. his first particular Exercitat § 19. of Sureties in baptisme urged in the minor of his sixth Argument touching humane inventions occasioned by Infant Baptisme We answer Animad 1 That sureties are known to have beene in Tertullians time and two hundred yeeres after in Augustines time as we have touched in divers quotations afore Whence I infer only this that the tenet and practice of Infant-baptisme were held in ancient times 2 That by vertue of Abrahams power and Guardianship over his houshold all his male family had the first signe or seal As the family of Cornelius and the Gaoler had the Governours believing and being baptized And usually those sureties that brought children to Baptisme promised to see them brought up in the fear of God or to that effect Whence I infer though I am not in the least for sureties onely I would have M. T. speak justly of things as they are That the sporting of profession of faith which M. T. here abjects was rather in the sureties that performed not that they promised then in thing it self To M. T. his second particular thence Exercitat of Episcopall confirmation We answer Animad that wee have already declared much of the Patriarchs imposition of hands of Christs imposition of hands of the Apostles imposition of hands of Churches imposition of hands since the Apostles upon little ones and usually after the first seal So that there is not so much human-invention in imposition of hands on baptized persons as there was arrogancy in the Bishops to assume this peculiarly to themselves To M. T. his third particular there That the reformed union Exercitat by examination confession and subscription of the received doctrine
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
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
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.