in baptizing people of ripe yeers de facto in fact confession of sin c. did precede and forego But neither John Baptist nor the Apostles make any such expresse rule that de jure of equitie none should be baptized by them but those that could make confession of sin or profession of faith Nor doth all the Scriptures brought by Mr. T. prove any such rule Mr. T. himself intimatedly confesseth that John the Baptist did not make a rule for confession but onely in practise those Jews of ripe yeers that John Baptist did baptize did first confesse their sins And that Act. 2.39 Act. 16. c. have been alreadie discussed that they shewed children were baptized who could not make confession or profession But Mr. T. objects Act. 8.37 If thou believest with thy whole heart thou mayest be baptized Where the Apostle implies in his speech to the Eunuch that defect of faith was an impediment of baptisme We answer Mr. T. afore confesseth p. 24. Infants may be sanctified If therefore he means the defect of manifestation of faith we answer It is true in men of ripe yeers For there it is known that they are worse then Infants So was it in circumcision If Ishmael be a known scoffer he is cast out and so his children are not circumcised unlesse perhaps after at yeers they gave good testimonie of their due subjection to the Law So that to the whole argumentation we say that here is mention of the manner of the practise of that first administration of baptisme to the parents with confession and profession by many examples and intimations but not a rule set down that thus it must be in the succession of believers children We list not to speak any thing more of this major Proposition and the proofs onely wonder that among the crowd of Scriptures Mr. T. quotes he would thrust in that of Act. 19.5 for baptisme of water which was onely a conferring of the miraculary gifts of the holy Ghost by imposition of hands as many arguments from the place can evince But Mr. T. objects this for a confirmation of his Argument That if it be rightly argued from 1 Cor. 11.28 that the Lords Supper is not to be granted to Infants because self-examination is pre-required by like reason we may say Baptisme is not yeelded to Infants because repentance and faith are pre-required Act. 2.38 Act. 8.37 and that of those that descended from Abraham and to whom the promise was Besides what we said afore we answer to this Argument great in shew that there is not the like reason between those places for Baptisme and that for the Lords Supper For 1. That of the Lords Supper speaks of every Communicant viritim as counting one after another Let the partie whosoeuer it be enter into self-examination before eating But that Act. 2.38 speaks in the gub or generall to the parents And that Act. 8.37 is spoken to one onely man and in that phrase that cannot be found elsewhere on that occasion 2. There is no intimation in the New Testament of children admitted to the Lords Supper But in that Act. 2. presently in the next verse v. 39. there is an intimation of their Infants admitted to Baptisme as before we have evinced That clause of descending from Abraham and the belonging of the promise is of no weight in this Argument For 1 The parents by putting to death Christ had made themselves in wickednesse worse then Gentiles 2 That confession and profession is expresly called for onely from them that were so apparently wicked 3 That if they did come in by repentance the promise saith the Apostle presently runs to their children CHAP. XIII THe fourth Argument saith Mr. T. is taken from the next Age after the Apostles Exercit. Sect. 17. The 4. Argument against Infant Baptisme from the practise in the next age after the Apostles That tenet and practise is doubtfull of which it cannot be proved that it was in force or use in the next age after the Apostles But it cannot be proved that the tenet or practise of Infant-Baptisme was in force or use in the Age next after the Apostles Ergo. The major is of it self manifest The minor is proved by the testimony of Lodovicus Vives above-recited to which Vossius in the sibus Historico-Theologicis of Infant-baptisme joyns the testimony of Walafridus Strabo and by the examining of places brought to that purpose and by the continuation of questions propounded to the baptized in Ages following and others tokens from Councils and Ecclesiasticall Writers which in historicall businesse are wont to beget credit The words of Walafridus Strabo who lived about the yeer 840. in his book Derebus Ecclesiasticis Chap. 26. are these We are also to note that in the first times the grace of Baptisme was wont onely to be given to them who by integritie both of body and minde were already come to this that they could know and understand what profit is to be obteined in Baptisme what is to be confessed and believed what lastly is to be observed of them that are born again in Christ Thus farre Mr. T. and his quotation of Walafridus 1. To Mr. T. his major we say Animadvers that it is not of it self manifest For what if we cannot produce any Records of Antiquitie for the use and practise of many things in the Age next to the Apostles are they therefore doubtfull when as we have the Word of God for them Therefore the meer failing of the Votes of humane Writers do not make a thing doubtfull though the Papists urge us with the like Argument that the Protestant Churches are not true because we cannot produce Histories c. to shew their succession in all Ages If we fail in Records of Antiquitie we may thank the Papists chiefly who as we may say martyred by fire and otherwise as well good books as godly men and yet the Truth according to Scripture stands where it did To Mr. T. his minor we say In generall 1. That Mr. T. tels us beside of Lodovicus Vives and Wal. Strabo of places brought to that purpose of the continuation of questions propounded to the baptized in ages following of other tokens from Councils and of Ecclesiasticall Writers but quotes them not which is not the way to beget credit in the judicious Reader It were too much to believe every Author upon his bare word without other circumstances and therefore by much more too much to believe Authors not produced but onely intimated by Mr. T. 2. Mr. Tombes gives us in two late-men in comparison of the stream of ancient Antiquitie which is contrary to those two 3. If those two had been a considerable number or had produced to us any considerable Reasons or quotations of Antiquitie higher then themselves or any fair probabilities or circumstances how they gather it they would sooner have begot credit then as they are now proposed In particular first to Ludovicus Vives we answered
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
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
as he saith having been formerly larger I say who knows but Mr. T. and Mr. D. formerly have so thought and so done themselves or at least have not professed against it which now they dislike in others Therefore let me offer to Mr. T. and Mr. D. and others of their judgement these three considerations First who that hath eyes as they Revel 4. as well within as without may not arreign himself guilty of this encroachment of extending his practise beyond the rule In many practises he throws open all fences and turns them into common But if he be questioned by the weakest disputant he cannot he dares not justifie himself in his sins but confesseth his way is butted there and bounded here and all the rest trespasse against the line he ought to walk by Secondly who is that professor especially a Minister living in this Summer of the Gospel at this time of the assent of Reformation to our Pole that forgets how in the dark and stormy Winter he saw lesse and stumbled more Even many of the Antipaedobaptists whom we own as brethren if they count Non-baptizing of beleevers children a peece of further Reformation a spark of clearer light must of necessitie confesse that not long since they thought not they did not so why then should we insult over our brethrens failing or taunt them for setting neerer their meridian closer to the rule that instead of baptizing all children they now state the question that onely believers children ought to be baptized unlesse in some speciall cases of which after Thirdly though meerly that second nature custome and that whirlwinde of persecution did precipitate many of later times to baptize all Protestant professors children confessing Christ to be come in the flesh and justification to be rooted in his righteousnesse alone yet all Ministers did not the same upon the same principles But 1. They knew that very anciently as appears by Tertullian living ann Dom. 195. which was not long after St. John Helvic This Tertullian being alledged in this question by H.D. the Churches did not baptize the children of unbeleevers out of the Church without Sponsores or Susceptores undertakers which we call Witnesses who engaged themselves as parents to look to the Christian education of such children called Godfathers as if fathers under God or for godlinesse to see them trained up in sound Religion Tertullians words in his Treatise de Baptismo cap. 18. are these Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio baptismi utilior praecipue tamen circa parvulos Quid enim necesse est si non tamnecesse sponsores etiam periculo ingeri On which words Junius his note is this Tria hic distincti proponit Auctor quae si rectè intelligantur locus est sanctissimus Conditio personarum baptizandarum est quod sint in faedere sive grandiores sive parvuli Dispositio est quòd credant obsequantur Evangelio profiteanturque Aetate non qui sunt in faedere nam parvuli piorum liberi in faedere sunt sed qui profitentur fidem recognosci solent Quum itaque dicit praecipue tamen circa parvulos id de extraneorum non de faederatorum domesticorumque liberis opus est intelligi ut aetiologia sequente confirmatur Illud autem sr non tam necesse etiam sine injuriâ auctoris abesse potest Not to spend time in construing all this we now onely give you the summe of both in the point now in hand for we shall more largely speak to every particular afterwards That which they both say concerning witnesses to children that in these ancient times they were used for children whose parents were without and not of the faith not of the Church We speak not for the using of witnesses or godfathers c. in baptizing children as the wont was among us But Secondly that this ancient custome as ancient at least as Tertullian might possibly have some respect to the Scripture Gen. 17. according to Mr. Cottons observation His book of the way of the Churche in N. England pag. 115. Baptisme saith he may orderly be administred to the children of such parents as have professed their faith and repentance before the Church Or where either of the parents have made such profession Or it may be considered also whether the children may not be baptized where either the grandfather or grandmother have made such profession and are still living to undertake for the Christian education of the childe For it may be conceived where there is a stipulation of the covenant on Gods part and a restipulation on mans part So M. Grcenham also See his works where he saith the children of unbeleeving parents are within the covenant by virtue of their believing grandfathers Or else how is God the God of their seed to shew mercy to thousands of generations of them that love him there may be an obligation of the covenant on both parts Gen. 17.7 Or if these fail what hindereth but that if the parents will resigne their Infant to be educated in the house of any godly member of the Church the childe may be lawfully baptized in the right of its houshold governor according to the proportion of the Law Gen. 17 12 13. So far Mr. Cotton both his judgement and his grounds Now in imitation of this last clause in all likelihood were Witnesses used though abusively in baptizing the children of some unbelievers and strangers from the Church yet therefore we have not such cause to trample upon any of our brethren about their error in baptizing too many Infants seeing they erred with some antiquitie and some pretence of Scripture before they saw this light for which God must be glorified and not man prided The last thing Mr. T. objects in this Argument on Matth. 28.19 is that if this place doth not exclude all Infants from Baptisme then nor doth 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat exclude Infants from the Lords Supper saying by the like elusion that the speech of the Apostle is not exclusive Yea verily saith Mr. T. neither will the Argument be of force from the institution of the Supper Matth. 26.26 27. that believers onely are to be admitted to the Lords Supper We answer And first to that comparison of 1 Cor. 11.28 with Matth. 28.19 we reply two things First that there is expressed in 1 Cor. 11. an universall determinating terme singling out all communicants man by man that they must be able to examine themselves before they eat But there is no such determinating word about Baptisine in Matth. 28.19 For first we have already in severall places of our Animadversions shewed that there is no certaintie at all that the Greek word here must signifie to-disciple or make-disciples For first most learned men render it no more but teach And so the Syriack and Arabick Translations * In the best Translations of the French
afore in our Reply to Mr. T. his 13. Sect. touching the Argument of the failing of the Churches succession in the 9. Chap. of our Animadversions And we adde now that both he and Walaf Strabo speak as if they had not been acquainted with Antiquitie in this point as will appear by and by from that we shall be able to quote 2 To Walafridus Strabo who is but of yesterday in comparison by Mr. T. his confession to barely assert against higher approved Antiquitie We answer that if Mr. T. would but have gone on in the place he quoted out of the 26. Chap. of that Wal. Strabo de Rebus Ecclesiasticis and translated a line or two further the world might have better seen what an acurat Antiquarie that Strabo was We will therefore translate onward immediately where Mr. T. left For the venerable Father Augustine saith W. Strabo reports of himself in his books of his Confessions that he continued Catechumenus a catechised person almost to the twenty fift yeer of his age namely to that intent that by this delay of time he being well learned in every particular he might be led by his own free accord to choose that which he liked Thus Walaf Strabo Upon which Ger. Joh. Vossius his observation is this Thus far Walafridus saith Vossius in whose words instead of the twenty fift yeer as he is in printed copies Bibl. p. p. T. 6. Ed. 2. and cited of learned men Joseph vice com observ Eccles lib. 2. cap. 1. c. we ought to read the thirty fift yeer For Augustine as appears by his books of his Confessions was converted in the thirty first yeer of his age For the two yeers following he continued under catechising in which time he wrote against the Academici and wrote his Soliloquies At thirty foure yeers old he was baptized by Ambrose at Midain which declare with how weak an argument Walafridus doth contend Thus far Ger. J. Vossius 3 To Mr. T. his manner of quoting Vossius as if Vossius added another testimonie to that of L. Vives out of Walaf Strabo against Infant-baptisme We answer Mr. T. doth but hereby neatly occasion if not cause the unlearned to fall into a mistake as if Vossius were against Infant-Baptisme when as he is altogether for it with many Arguments wherein is shewed much divine learning He that hath but Latine may read them at large Ger. Joh. Voss Thes Theolog. Histor Disput de Paedobapt Thes 3. c. 4 Mr. T. intimating a referring himself in this cause of the ancientnesse of Infant-baptisme to Antiquitie Councils Ecclesiasticall Writers c. doth but reach down a rod for his own opinion and a confutation of his minor Proposition he pretended to prove by Antiquitie For the best antiquitie of the Fathers c. are for us against Mr. T. that Infant-baptisme was in the next Age to the Apostles and so downwards which to follow Mr. T. in his own we are forced to produce and to refell Mr. T. and Mr. D. exceptions against some of them as alledged by some of us that we may leave things clear as we go 1 Justin Martyr * Justin Maryr saith Bucholcerus apologized for the Christians in the yeer 141 after Christs birth And was converted to Christianity before that in the yeer after Christs birth 130. saith Helvious He was a professor of Philosophy before his conversion and therefore in all likelihood was at least 20. yeers old if not 30 at his conversion and so lived very neer the time of John the Apostle who dyed not till about Ann. 200 after the birth of Christ And therefore Justin Martyr muâ—â— needs know the customes in the Apostles dayes in his books unquestionably his in some things we cast our eye upon for we had not time now to read over Pamphlets of this question much lesse volumnes seems to hint something towards Infant-baptisme in his Dialogue Cum Tryph. Jud Have ye not read that that soul should be cut off from his genoration which shall not be circumcised the eighth day And this is equally established concerning strangers or those bought with money This Covenant therefore or Testament you despising you neither have any regard of the Commandments following and then adjoynes There is now need of another circumcision c. And in his 2 Apol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After washing in that manner we bring him that hath believed and is joyned to us unto the biethren as they are called where they are gathered together and make prayers and supplications in common both for them selves and for him that hath been eluminated that is baptized c. Again in his Dialog cum Tryphone he opposeth baptisme with water to baptizing with sin but we are baptized with sin when children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again one in a Treatise which goes under the name of Justin Martyr namely in the Questions to the orthodox Question and Answer 56. disputes the different condition of children dying baptized EXAMEN Perk. prepara to the Demonstrat of the Problem Rivet Crit. Sacer. R. Cook of Leeds Censur patrum Exercit. unbaptized Therefore children were baptized in his time Mr. T. in his Examen objecteth that it is proved by Mr. Perkins by Rivet and by Cook that the Quest ad orthodox were not Justin Martyrs for as much as they mention not onely Irenaeus but also Origen and the Manichees We answer Although we will not peremptorily pronounce that those Questions and Answers ad Orthodoxos were Justin Martyrs neverthelesse it doth not yet appear to us as infallibly proved by Mr. T. his Arguments that those Quest ad Orthodox were none of his 1. For the mention of the Manichees there is a mistake The place where the Manichees are mentioned is not affirmed by divers learned men * Cook cens patr Rivet Crit. Sacer. Possevin App. to be in the Questions to the orthodox but in Quaestiouib Responsionib ad Graecos there we find them often mentioned ** Resp ad Qu. primam c. often Perk. For mention of the Manichees in the Questions ad Orthodoxos once in some copies in Quaest 127. Mr. T. hath it but out of one Author And very likely it was thrust in to the Quest ad orthod in latter times by the Scribes For the sence is perfect without it And the inserting is but in manner of a quotation to explain how in those times Justin Martyr met with some opinions then arising which in after-times grew infamously famous got an head and a Name of Manicheisme which being known to the Scribes of latter times they might put in the name Maniche as answerable to the thing disputed and for the information of the Reader Who that is a Scholar doth not know that Marginall notes on books at last have crept into the Text Many instances might be given of books of many sorts So then this reason is not a certain evincing Argument that the Qu. ad orthod are not
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
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
T. that if it were so manifest as you speak you should find nothing in Eusebius for Infant-baptisme nor in Ignatius nor in Clemen Alexandrinus nor in Athanasius nor in Epiphanius Animadvers We answer 1. Mr. T. brings but one place out of one Origen to prove as he pretends that Infant-baptisme is but a tradition We bring foure for the contrary Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen and Nazianzen and yet these are not sufficient with him unlesse we hear Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus c. say so too 2 A non dicto and non factum not valet consequentia Many things have been done in the Church which those Authors may not mention 3 They may speak of Infant-baptisme in some of their works which long since were lost 4 Mr. T. saith that YOV should find nothing in Eusebius Ignatius c. for Infant-baptisme And we say it is wonder Mr. T. did find nothing in them to the contrary in his 7 or 8 moneths time to write his EXAMEN which we not having much above 8 weeks for our Answer and so have not time to ransack every book But fiftly CLEM. ALEXAN li. 3. Strâ—m p. 461. He flourished about the yeer of Christ 193. Buchol Helvic this we cast our eye upon in Clem. Alexand which makes me think somewhat might be found in him towards Infant-baptism if we had time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Neither doth Gods divine providence now likewise command 〈◊〉 of old that he that hath risen from the conjugall bed should be washed For the Lord doth not necessarily take off from procreation of children those that are believers whom he hath by one Baptisme washed in all respects according to his wont who by one baptisme comprehends all the Baptismes of Moses Therefore the Law of God by carnall generation foretelling our regeneration did for the seminall facultie of generation hold forth baptisme Vide Graecum textum not loathing humane generation Thus Clem. Alex. with much more which for haste we cannot stand to translate Give us leave to adde a note or two 1. Let me observe with Hervet Aurelianus that this place relates to Levit. 15 16 17 18. If any mans seed of copulation shall go out from him then he shall wash all his flesh in water and be unclean untill the evening And every garment and every skin whereon is the seed of copulation shall be washed with water and be unclean untill the Even The woman also with whom the man shall lye with seed of copulation they shall both bathe themselves in water and be unclean untill the even This is the LAW and these are the BAPTISMES of MOSES of which Clem. Alexandrinus speaks here HESYCHIVS 2. Take the note of ancient and learned Hesychius * He flourished about 402d yeer after Christ Helvic on this place which is this The Lord himself saith he sheweth that mankinde must have the necessary regeneration of baptisme saying Vnlesse a man be born again of water and the holy Spirit he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven Joh. 3. The untowardnasse of which filth in us was transfused from Adam Whence David saith he was born in iniquity and conceived in sin Psal 51. not accusing his mother but intimating his sinfulnesse which ran down from his progenitors And now the Law-maker commanded him out of whom proceedeth the seed of copulation that is â—e that hath effused his seed for procreation of children yea also the woman that hath received it to wash the body because she hath received it by which is described this whole temple of ours that is the whole man consisting of soul and body In that Adam was made filthy by disobedience he made his seed to be filthy and so necessarily the body to be filthy which is of the seed in which he is unclean untill the Even that is the end of the time wherein Christ coming shews the water whereby our generation should be cleansed And that till then we remained unclean is proved from thence that they also that had not yet sinned actually that is were in their tender age have necessarily the seal of baptisme lest by death preventing they dye unclean c. Thus Hesychius with much more Thirdly If it pleaseth Mr. T. he may read Gentinus Hervetâ—â— Aurelianus his note on the place of Clem. Alexandrinus who is carefull to set forth the sence of Clemens though we heed not all his owne excursions Therefore Clem. Alexandrinus saith Gent. Hervet Anrel intimateth that many were the Baptismes of Moses anciently which were figures of our regeneration by Baptisme by which originall sin is washed which one onely Baptisme indeed is necessary for by it it is that the seed is no more uncleane though after to be further cleansed So Gent. Herv with much more Thus you have a touch out of one of Mr. T. his five Gr. Authors which he saith have nothing of Infant-Baptisme Wee will give you another touch out of another of his silent Authors as Mr. T. intimates and so dismisse the rest as not having all the Authors nor time to go looke after them EPIPHANIVS contra Haeres 30. p. 52. Epiphanius in his second Booke 2. Tom. contr Haeres speaking before of the Circumcision of Christ that he was circumcised to dissolve or abrogate that Circumcision to bring in a greater And that the Circumcision injoyned Abraham was not perfect but a signe of grace given and for the instruction of them in future times and thence wisheth Ebion not to imitate Christ in Circumcision of himself or others at last he speaks in these very words For the Lord saith Epiphanius hath removed the time of this Circumcision For he came and fulfilled it having given the perfect Circumcision of his mysteries and that not in one member onely but in the whole body sealed and circumcised from sinnes and saving not one onely part of the people that is men only but also all the people of Christians indeed signing or sealing men and women and liberally for the inheritance of the Kingdome of Heaven and not in exhibiting the seale defectively to one ranck or state virorum of men in the time of their imbecility but to all the people c. Thus far Epiphanius writes there of Infant-Baptisme and I am confident more might bee found in other places touching it had we time to seek though Epiphanius sayes nothing of it as Mr. T. weakly objects in lib. 2. Haeres 46. vel 47. in his disputation for Infants inheriting Heaven against the Hieracites We are not to teach other learned men what to speake nor when to speak nor to say they speake not at all of such a point if they do not speak where and when we expect 2. Mr. T. objects against the Greek Fathers alleadged by us EXAMEN Sect. 6. and in them against the custome of the Greek Churches touching Infant-Baptisme thus But besides the continuance of the questions to baptized persons and answered
of God for he excepts none nor Infant nor c. * So Basil long afore Ann. 372. In his exhortat to Baptisme To Ambrose Mr. T. answers nothing in his EXAMEN but onely takes notice that Mr. M. quoted him But makes no exception against him All these Ancients that we have translated were before the rise of Pelagianisme a Pelagius was about An. 104 Helvic or 413. El. Reusner whose abettors were for the generall great sticklers against the baptisme of Infants And before them the Arrians opposed the same b Arius was about the yeer 315. Helvic or 319 El Reusner Bucholc Of these see somewhat before in our Animadversions on Mr. T. his 2 Argument in his 15. Sect. Next let us touch those Ancients who after the rise of Anabaptisticall-Pelagianisme or Peleganian-Anabaptisme wrote for Infant-baptisme none of them urging it as onely the custome of the Churches others of them arguing it from the Scriptures and therefore took it not up as an unwritten tradition Chrysostome who flourished about the yeer after Christ CHRYSOSTOME 382. as Helvicus reckons was Bishop of Constantinople about 389. as El. Reusner computes upon those words 1 Tim. 3. Not a Novice that is a new tender plant saith the Apostle means not one so in regard of age for many such of the Gentiles or Nations came to the Church and were baptized There are other passages in Chrysostome but I promised but to touch these last Authors Hierom who flourished about the yeer after Christ HIERONIMVS 384. so Helvicus about the yeer 392. wrote his Catalogue of famous writers so Bucholcerus saith thus of Infant-baptisme in his Epistle to Lata The good or evil of a childe is much to be imputed to the parents meaning education unlesse saith he thou thinkest that the children of Christians in case they have not received baptisme are onely guilty of that sin and that the sin is not to be layed upon them that would not give it them especially at that time when they that were to receive it were not able to oppose As on the other side the salvation of Infants is the gain of the parents or ancestors So likewise Hierom in his third book of Dialogues against the Pelagians Thus. CRITO Tell me I pray thee and so deliver me from all questioning why Infants may be baptized ATTIC That their sins may be done away in baptisme CRITO What sin have they committed Is any man loosed that is not first bound ATTIC Doest ask me The Evangelicall Trumpet c. shall answer thee Rom. 5. Death reigned from Adam to Moses even upon them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression c. He that is a little one is loosed in baptisme from the bond of sin of the parent c. And lest thou shouldest think that I mean this in an hereticall sence the blessed Martyr Cyprian in his Epistle he wrote to Bishop Fidus concerning baptizing Infants minds us of these things And there Hierom transcribes a great part of that Epistle of which you heard afore And then addes Eloquent Augustine saith Hierom wrote long since to Marcellinus c. two books of baptizing Infants against your that is the Pelagian heresie by which you will assert that * NOTE how the Pelagians opposed Infant-Baptisme Infants are baptized not into remission of sins but into the kingdom of God according to that Joh. 3.5 Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit be cannot enter into the Kingdom of God He wrote also the third to the same Marcellinus against those who say as you Pelagians do that it is possible for a man to be void of sin without the grace of God He wrote also a fourth to Hilarius against thy doctrine Pelagius Also he is said to have written other books in speciall to thee by name which are not come to our hands c. I will onely say this that I may end my speech That either thou Pelagius must make a new form that after ye have baptized them into the Name of Father Son and holy Ghost ye baptize them into the kingdom of God or if you have one and the same baptisme in little ones and men then Infants must be baptized into remission of sins c. Thus Hierom. To all this of Hierom in this last quotation Mr. T. answers in his EXAMEN that the same answer will serve as to Augustine Well therefore let us come to Augustine Augustine flourished about 391 after Christ AVGVST Helvic and hath abundance concerning Infant-baptisme in his 28. Epistle in his book of originall sin Chap. 40. In his second book of Marriage and Concupiscence Chap. 20. In his third book of sin merit and remission Chap. 7 8 9. In his second book against Jul. ca. 3. In his fourth book of Baptisme against the Donatists Chap. 24 * So hath THEODORET epit divin dogmat ca. de Baptismo He flourished about the yeer 422. And so GENNADIVS de Ecclesiast dogmat c. 31. He flourish about the yeer 458. In his fourth book against the two Epistles of Pelag. Chap. 8. It were a tedious businesse to translate all these places for me that intended more brevitie having too much other businesse and too little time for this work and for many Readers which delight no more in reading these then I in quoting of them but that Mr. T. leads me to them therefore and because I shall translate somewhat of Augustine by and by I will onely note particularly of Augustine these two things First that Augustine in that place of his 7 8 9. Chapters of his third book of sin merit and remission quotes almost all Cyprians Epistle to Fidus. Secondly that Augustine doth not build his judgement onely upon Cyprian because in his fourth book of baptisme against the Donatists he proves Infant-baptisme by many Arguments from the Scriptures Now all these especially the last we onely touch that we may not toyl our selves and the Reader There are of the Anabaptists that can tell whether those Authors be not for us or no. We shall onely adde some observations upon them and so passe on 1. That these five last Authors Chrysost Hierom August Theod. Genn wrote for Infant-baptisme after the rise of Pelagianisme * See also Voss Thes Theol. hist Though some of the men were afore it yet those things afore quoted were written after it 2. That they wrote those things at least 300 yeers afore Mr. T. his Walafridus was a Writer to tell us that tale against Infant-baptisme of which you heard afore we gave our Answer to it 3. That these did argue out of Scripture and no otherwise determine the question that Infants ought to be baptized then as the pious learned Ancients had held in former ages long before * See before in the notes in the margin on Cyprinan Augustine shall here for brevities sake speak for them all who being one
Church Now the reason of Augustines authority was this the Pelagian heresie being generally condemned and Augustines workes being greatly esteemed as being the hammer of the Pelagians the following refuters of Pelagianisme Prosper Fulgentius c. the Councells that did condemne it as those of Carthage Arles Milevis c. did rest altogether on Augustines arguments and often on his words and Augustine in time was accounted one of the four Doctors of the Church esteemed like the four Evangelists so that his opinion was the rule of the Churches Judgement and the schools determination as to the great hurt of Gods Church Luther and others have been of late Now Augustine did very much insist on this Argument to prove originall sinne because Infanâ—s were baptized for remission of sinnes and therefore in the Councill of Milevis he was adjudged accursed that did deny it But for my part I value Augustines judgement just at so much as his proofs and reasons weigh which how light they are you may conceive August tom 1. Confess lib. 1. c. 11. Signabar signo crucisejus condiebar ejus sale jam inde ab utero matris meae quae multuâ—â— speravit in te And then follows how being young and falling sick he desired and his mother thought to have him baptized but upon his recovery it was deferred First In that whereas he makes it so Universall a tradition his owne baptisme not till above thirty though educated as a Christian by his mother Monica the Baptisme of his sonne Adeodatus at 15. of his friend Alipius if there were no more were enough to prove that this custome of baptizing infants was not so received as that the Church thought necessary that all children of Christians by profession should be baptized in their infancy And though I conceive with Grotius annot in Matth. 19.14 that baptisme of Infants was much more frequented and with greater opinion of necessity in Africa then in Asia or other parts of the world for saith he in the Councells you cannot finde ancienter mention of that custome then the Councell of Carthage Yet I doe very much question whether they did in Africa even in Augustines time baptize children except in danger of death or for the health of body or such like reason I do not finde that they held that Infants must be baptized out of such cases for it is cleare out of sundry of Augustines Tracts as particularly tract 11. in Johan that the order held of distinguishing the Catechumeni and baptized and the use of Catechizing afore baptisme still continued yea and a great while after insomuch that when Petrus Cluniacensis disputed against Peter de Bruis he said only that there had been none but Infants baptized for 300 yeares or almost 500 years in Gallia Spaine Germany Italy and all Europe and it seemes he denyed not the baptizing of growne persons in Asia still whence I collect that even in the Latine Church after Augustines dayes in sundry ages the baptizing of persons of growne age did continue as well as baptizing of infants till the great darkenesse that over-spred the Westerne Churches spoyled by Barbarous Nations destitute of learned men and ruled by ambitious and unlearned Popes when there were none to Catechize and therefore they baptized whole Countries upon the baptisme of the King of that Country though both Prince and people knew little or nothing of Christianity but were in respect of manners and knowledge Pagans still which hath been the great cause of the upholding of Papacie and corrupting of Christian Churches I meane this great corruption of baptizing making Christians giving Christendome as it is called afore ever persons were taught what Christianity was or if they were taught any thing it was onely the ceremonies and rites of the Church as they called them 2. You may conceive how light Augustine's judgement was Rivet tract de Patrum authâ—ritate c. 9. Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudic at Infantes sine badtismo morientes by considering the ground upon which Augustine held and urged the baptisme of Infants so vehemently which was as all know that read his workes the opinion he had That without baptism Infants must be damned by reason of originall sinne which is not taken away but by baptisme yea though he wanted baptisme out of necessity urging those places Joh. 3.5 Rom. 5.12 continually in his disputes against the Pelagians particularly tom 7. de natura gratia c. 8. And tom 2. ep 28. he saith Item quisquis dixerit quod in Christo vivificabuntur etiam parvuli qui sine Sacramenti ejus participatione de vita exeunt hic profecto contra Apostolicam praedicationem venit totam condemnat ecclesiam And in the close of the Epistle calls it robustissimam fundatissimam sidem qua Christi ecclesia nec parvulos homines recentissime natos a damnatione credit nisi per gratiam domini Christi quam in suis Sacramentis commendavit posse liberari And this Perkins in his Probleme proves was the opinion of Ambrose and many more And hence as Aquinas so Bellarmine proves baptisme of Infants from Joh. 3.5 And this hath been still the principall ground The ground that you go on that the covenant of grace belongs to beleevers and their seed I cannot find amongst the Ancients Yea as you may perceive out of Perkins in the place alleadged although Ambrose and Augustine in his 4. book de Baptismo contra Donatistas c. 22 yeilded that either Martyrdome or the desire of Baptisme might supply the defect of Baptisme and some of the School-men Biel Cajetan Gerson do allow the desire and prayer of parents for children in the wombe in stead of Baptisme Yet we find no remedy allowed by them but actuall baptisme for children borne into the world So strictly did Augustine and the Ancients urge the necessity of Baptisme for Infants born 3. You may consider that Augustine held a like necessity of Infants receiving the Lords supper from the words John 6.53 as is plainly expressed by him lib. 1. de peccat merit remis c. 20. And accordingly as in Cyprians tim the Communion was given to Infants as appears by the story which he relates of himselfe giving the Communion to an Infant in his book de lapsis mentioned by August epist 23. So it is confessed by Maldonat on Joh. 6. that Innocentius the first Bishop of Rome held it necessary for Infants and that this opinion and practise continued about 600 years in the Church though it be now rejected by the Romane Church in the Councell of Trent 4. You may consider that Augustine held such a certainty of obtaining regeneration by Baptisme that not onely he puts usually regeneration for Baptisme but also he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants though they that brought them did not bring them with that faith that they might be regenerated by spirituall grace to eternall life but because by Baptisme they thought to
integrity or ripenesse of body and mind c. but gives not proofs or reasons but onely one single instance of Augustine himselfe for an universall proposition 3. As we noted afore that Walfrid grossely mistook in the alleadging that one instance of Augustine For Walfrid saith in his book De rebus Ecclesiasticis which we have under our eye that Augustine reports in his confessions of himselfe that he continued a Catechumenus a chatechised person till he was 25 years old before he was baptized when as Augustine saith of himselfe in his books of confessions that he was not converted till about the thirtieth year of his age after which he continued a Catechized one about two years in which time he wrote against the Academians and wrote his Soliloquies and in his 34 yeer of his age he was baptized at Mellain of Ambrose You see then how little credit is to be given to dreaming Walafrid in this point of Augustine 4. Walafrid confesseth that upon the increase of diligent search into divine Religion men of understanding in Christian doctrine finding that peccatum originale Adae c. the originall sin of Eve did hold guilty not onely those that had committed actuall sinne but those that had not according to the 51 Psalm in sin did my mother conceive me and Rom. 3. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God and that from Adam we had all sinned c. That upon these grounds of Scripture they that is those religious men baptized their Infants into remission of sinne And this practise of Infant-baptisme Walfrid judgeth a token of the growth of Religion And alleadgeth Augustins book of baptism of Infants and the African Councills and the Fathers in generall for Infant Baptisme against that of Augustines practise baptized at ripe yeares and withall Walafrid saith That thus those wise Christians did Baptize their Infants into remission of sinnes and for regeneration and not as some Hereticall persons contra-opposing against the grace of God contend that Infants are not necessarily to be baptized And now I hope I have given Mr T. enough of his Walafrid upon his so oft and confident alleadging him and have satisfied the Reader touching him If Mr T. speaks of Walfridus his mention of the invention of Gossips as they call them following upon Infant-Baptisme and spirituall kin of Gossips following upon that as thereby to blemish Walafridus then Mr T. breaks his own shins For Mr T. did go upon the legs of Walafridus to fetch us an antiquity against Infant-baptism If Mr T. doth but use Walafridus his antiquity of the invention of those two things We Answ 1. Gossips were long before Augustines time even in Tertullians time many hundred yeers afore Superstitions of divers sorts crept into the Church soon after Constantines time And spirituall kin of Gossips is but a novell late dream of yester night in comparison of the Church of Rome falsly so called 3. That neither of these inventions necessarily depend on Infant baptisme more then a rope of sand or pebles in a With for as much as if beleevers practised the baptisme of their children it was seldome but one of the Parents were alive in the Infancy of the child Kneeling followed the Communion and adoration of the Elements followed that kneeling yet these do nothing disparage the Communion it selfe in the Institution and substance of it but onely defiled the Communicants that so superstitiously used that sacred thing Thus of Walafridus Strabo Now of Peter de Bruis and of Peter Cluniacensis his Epistles to two A. B B. and two B B. against him which are called Epistolae contra Petro-brusianorum Heinricianorum haereses And well may De Bruis and Heinricus be taxed with Herefie if that be true Cluniacensis chargeth upon them And he professeth twice that he would not accuse them upon uncertainties and reports but upon that writing taken from them and brought to him wherein he chargeth them as from their own mouths that they denyed all the Scriptures especially in the New Testament excepting the four Evangelists Evangelium at supra dixi vos suscipere Epistolas Pauli c. cur non suscipitis Respondetis quia non adeo certa nobis earum authoritas est And for this cause Cluniacensis spends two long chapters in proving the Old Testament and the New to be the true Word of God by quotations out of the four Evangelists which Evangelists Bruis and Henricus did acknowledge and Cluniacensis goes over all the Bible so book after book to so approve them to Bruis and his collegue But to come to the point in hand of paedobaptisme 1. Mr T. tells us that Peter de Bruis denyed Baptisme but tels us not the rest that Peter de Bruis denyed in that very point Mr T. shewed us fairly the green grasse but not the snake lurching in it Truely I could not but with fadnesse read Cluniacensis of Peter de Bruis when I found how there as formerly Mr T. takes here and there a touch of Authors that is for his turn and conceals that which is most necessarily mixed and twisted with it which if Mr T. had but intimated would have overthrown his quotations For Mr T. his Petrus Cluniacensis gives us the first Preposition so he calls it of Petrus de Bruis thus Mar. 16.15 Qui crediderit baptizatus fuerit salvus erit qui verà non crediderit damnabitur Ex his apertè monstratur nullum nisi exediderit baptizatus fuerit hoc est nisi Christianam fidem habuerit baptismuni perceperit posse salvari Nam non alterum horum fed utrumque pariter salvat * And a little after this is made more plain Nec baptismus sine propria fide nec propria fides sine baptisme aliquid potuit Neutrum cuim sine altero salvat That is unde infantes licèt a vobis baptizentur quia tamen credere obstante aetate non possunt nequaquam salvantur Non rebaptizamus sed baptizamus quia nunquam baptizatus dicendus est qui baptismo quo peèccata lavantur lotus non est that is Mark 16.15 He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved but he that beleeveth not shall be damned Hence it is apparently demonstrated saith Peter de Bruis that none unlesse he beleeve and be baptized that is hath Christian faith and receives and perceives Baptisme can be saved For not one of these alone doth save but both of them joyntly see the Margin ** Neither could baptism without ones own proper faith be ableto do any thing nor ones own proper faith without baptism For neither of them without the other saveth So doth Peter de Bruis after explain himselfe Therefore faith De Bruis to Cluniacensis his partee though Infants be baptized by you yet because through the hinderance of their age they cannot believe by no means are they saved We saith De Bruis do not rebaptize but baptize because he is never to be said
will be mistaken Thus of Mr T. his first particular in his minor That Infant Baptisme was an unwritten tradition in some ages after the first of the Apostles but he cannot tell when as we have proved To his second particular of Jewish imitation Exercitat We have spoken already in answer to the Major Animadver And we have shewd that the pious learned ancients had other Scripture reasons then only Circumcision or their greedinesse to increase the number of Christians who so oft gave warning to take heed to whom they gave that sacred thing baptisme * Caeterum Baptismum non temere credendumesse sciunt quorum officium est Nolite dare sanctum canibus ne participes a liena delicta c. Textul lib. de baptis cap. 18. or Mr T. his perhaps a fine word for an argument and in divine things heathenish lustration of little ones When Justin Martyr Tertullian c. apologized against heathenisme for Christianity and many of our quoted authors sealed their opposition against Heathenisme with their blood And if there were any true Jewish imitation of Circumcision in Infant-baptisme it was in Fidus that thought children might not be baptized till the eight day and not in Cyprians Epistle that confuted him Nor do they more intimate the necessity of baptisme to salvation then Christ himself Iohn 3.5 Except a man he borne again of water and the spirit c. which is a place they oft quote or the Apostles that say we are baptized into remission of sinnes and for receivall of the holy spirit which they Hierom and others also alleadge And it is most sure there is such a necessity in regard of Gods precept and means as to us in the use of ordinances as let them venter their salvation on the willing neglect of them that dare I dare not As it is a sinne to put more in an ordinance then God ever put in it as the Anabaptists talke of wonderfull strange manifestations at and in the act of dipping I know what I speak or to think one is damned without an ordinance when God prevents the having it by death or otherwise so greater is the sinne to contemne an ordinance injoyned when it may be had As Tertullian speaks in his book de Baptismo chap. 13. Hic ergo scelestissimi illi c. Here those most gracelesse follows provoke questions So that they say baptism is not necessary to whom faith is sufficient c. To Mr T. Exercitat §. 17. his third particular in his Minor that Infant-baptisme was not universally practised for Constantine was not baptized whiles an Infant though his mother Helena were a Christian Nor Augustine though his mother Monica was a Christian c. We answer 1 No wonder if baptisme of Infants be not universally practised in all ages Animadver when so many Sects under one notion or another more or lesse stuck at it First Arrians in one age after that the Pelagians in another after them Arminius then the Anabaptists in Luthers time then the Anabaptists in Ainsworths time and now the Anabaptists in our times Shall these men make a practise and then make of it an argument for themselves who will be swayed with such an argument as that They should make out their practise from an argument and not make an argument of their practise 2 Mr T. doth not here so much as say that Helena was a Christian at Constantines birth or that Monica was a Christian at Augustines birth which to have cleared was necessary to the argument 3 Who doth not know that histories make mention of Helena as of a very weak and wonderfull I had almost said superstitious Christian Socrat. schol Ecles hist lib. 1. chap. 13. according to the English trans in digging for the crosse of Christ at Hierusalem and finding three to wit those two also on which the theeves were crucified on and being perplexed which was Christs a miracle of curing a dying woman with that which was Christs resolved which was his and so shee locked up some of it in a silver chest and the rest was set up upon a pillar in the market place at Constantinople so called of Constantine for the preservation of that City As also that she finding the nayles that fastened Christ to the Crosse shee sent them to her sonne Constantine the Emperour whereof he caused bittes for bridles helmets and head-peece to be made which he wore in battail So Socrate Eccles You see how vaine a story here is And that all the Christianitie by this appearing in Helena relates to the time of her sonne Constantines being Emperour And therefore what Mr T. can make of it to his purpose I know not 4. At this time of Constantines birth were great persecutions risen now almost towards the highest it cost after that Constantine many a battle before he could quiet things and therefore Helena the Emperesse the wife of Constantius the Emperour Religion then daring little to peepe forth more then in notorious suffering for it might well be affraid if she were then a Christian to doe such an act as to carry her sonne to Baptisme as Ministers might be afraid to doe it Constantius the father not being a Christian though politically moderate 5. For Augustine 1. It is cleare out of Aug. Confessions The first Booke and 11. Chap. that his father was not a beleever at his birth nor when he was growne up to be a little boy of some understanding For he sayth there in the description of himselfe while he was Puer a little boy or lad Ita jam credebam et illa et omnis domus nisi pater solus c. So I and my mother and all the family did now beleeve except my father onely who notwithstanding did not controule my mothers power over me whereby I should not beleeve in Christ For shee rather endevored that thou O my God shouldest be my father rather then he so Augustine Now the want of the fathers concurrence in carrying a child to baptisme in those difficult times might be some delay of that Sacrament For secondly We say persecution was walking among Christians about that time for Augustine in his third Booke chap. 25. Contra literas Petiliani saith that after the death of the great Tyrant he went into Africa Intimating also that his mother lived a very private life his father being then dead Thirdly Augustine tell us in his first book of confessions and 11. chap. That Cum puer * One is said to begin to be a Puer from 〈◊〉 4 yeere old so upward to 14. essem et quodam die pressus stomachi dolore c. When I was a little boy or lad being a certaine day oppressed in my stomacke and sick even to death thou O God sawest because thou art my keeper with what motion of minde and with what faith I earnestly desired from the pietie of my mother and of thy Church
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.
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