that it came to bee used by the Fathers that lived 300. yeers after the Apostles as much saith A. R. in his Childish baptisme But say Cassander spoke as Proposition 4. hee is said to doe yet that proveth not that children of the faithfull were commonly first instructed ere baptized because some beleevers deferred baptisme or Tertullian and Gregory counselled it much lesse that this was well done according to Christs mind for wee have seene upon what unsound principles they did it and as for the Councell of Tertullian and Gregory it hath been before weighed of what force herein As for the other speech of Cassander that Pedobaptisme came in use by the Fathers 300. yeeres after the Apostles time it maketh mee stand and wonder at the impudent forehead of errour and yet I might wonder the lesse since it 's but just with God that they which hold lies should also tell lies I read Cassander with as much heed as I could to finde out whether there might bee any colour of ground of such a speech of him but could not finde out any like it unlesse that which hee saith bee this way wrested scil that the Apostles in the beginning by the command and charge of the Lord set up their worke and did every where constitute Churches gathered of the Gentiles to the Communion of the Gospel growne ones which consented to the Apostles doctrine after confession of the faith were without any distinction of times or places knit unto the Church of Christ by the Sacrament of Baptisme administred by the Disciples of the Apostles But saith also in the next words although even at that time it is to be beleeved that Infants also and especially sickly ones were offered to bee consecrated by the baptisme of Christ but clearely to evince the falsehood of that speech before cited to confirme Proposition 7. the very title of this booke contradicteth the same George Cassander of Infants baptisme The testimonies of the Ancient Ecclesiasticall writers which flourished within the 300. yeeres from the times of the Apostles that is from the departure of John the Apostles being more then the hundreth yeere from the birth of Christ And according to this his worke that hee propoundeth hee bringeth in very notable testimonies of the antients both Latine and Greeke that lived in that space for the proofe of Paedobaptisme that any that had not sâ—ene authorities before might have been thence well furnished for this purpose and after the testimonies produced Cassander closeth thus These are the testimonies of ancient Fathers which wee suppose are sufficient for the deciding of this controversie of childrens baptisme which hath been raised up by certaine wretched persons for in as much as all these whose testimonies wee have produced in a continued series from the Apostles were Orthodox teachers and guiders of Churches of Christ at severall times and places there is no question but that this Tenent being held forth by them all severally as with one mouth it was the very doctrine of the whole Church which the Church had received from the Apostles and transmitted the same to those in after times and upon the speech of Austin l. 4. contra Donat. c. 13 14. addeth To this Apostolicall doctrine of baptisme of Infants all the Apostolique Churches planted by the Apostles throughout the whole world they doe give testimony c. Who seeth not now the grosnesse of this falshood in fathering that upon Cassander the very contrary whereunto is his businesse there to evince SECT V. Zwinglius THe next testimony is of as grand an adversarie to Anabaptisme as any and that is Zuinglius who is quoted to confirme the 4th and 6th Proposition hee is said to affirme that there is no plaine word in Scripture whereby childrens baptisme is commanded his meaning is no more then thus that it is not in so many words said you shall baptize children as neither the first day of the weeke shall bee to you the Lords day or Christian Sabbath c. but the principall place and for the other two quotations they are to no purpose is that mentioned in his booke of Articles Act. 18. whose words because the treatise is so often tripping wee shall set downe verbatim who there speaking of Confirmation saith although I am not ignorant as it may bee gathered out of the Ancients that of old time Infants were baptized this is rendred otherwise in the Treatise and yet not so common as now it is but the children were alwayes instructed openly and when their faith had made impression upon their hearts and they confessed with their mouthes then they were admitted to baptisme this custome of teaching I wish were used and recalled now namely that baptisme being given to Infants they may bee afterwards taught when they come to age as they are capable of instruction from the Word of God this the Treatise leaveth out Zwinglius his judgment was that the maine in the childs right to baptisme was the Parents Covenant estate whence the child being federally holy which else had been uncleane had its maine title to baptisme so that in case both parents were visibly Pagans or Idolatrous c. they were not to bee baptized when yet in his time many such were baptized And thus I take it is that which hee intendeth that since in Ancient times albeit sometimes every little children of Infidels as may appeare were baptized yet not so commonly as now such like children are baptized promiscuously hand over head for which some as it appeares by Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. have pleaded albeit hee counts it their errour ibid. and since in those times Catechising as it appeareth of children was too little in use Zwinglius maketh that use of the Catechising of children of old both of persons joyned to the Church which were capable of instruction when first their parents joyned in Church estate before their baptisme which was one sort of children so catechised and of the exposititious children of Pagans also those children of their Pagan captive or slaves which were another sort of children catechized before baptisme Zwinglius wisheth that albeit it were not in his time used as neither before baptisme to such like children so neither after the baptisme neither of such children nor of others of visible beleevers which ought in Infancy to bee baptized yet now catechizing of children might bee in more use Assuredly Zwinglius was strong for this that baptisme of Infants was no practise taken up after the Apostles but by the Apostles no bare old custome taken upon humane grounds but his judgement was directly crosse to the Proposition hee is brought as a witnesse to that Christ did not institute Infants baptisme c. witnesse his many arguments from Scripture for it and his judicious answers to the evasions of the adversaries to that truth And as much may bee said of Oecolampadius his companion who is cited to confirme the 6th Proposition whereas in the first
alone convey sinne to the Infant It beleeveth then and it's baptisme is valid and it 's joyned to the faithfull formerly baptized This the authoritie of the Church our mother holdeth This doth the sure Canon or rule of truth obtaine Thus far forth then it was looked at as a doctrine not onely which the Church had in it but which the Scripture the rule of truth contained in it that in the businesse of Baptisme at least the faith of such as conveyed sinne to the child even of the parents was in stead of its owne personall faith so farre as to make its baptisme valid and beneficiall to it SECT IIII. Arnobius THe next witnesse is Arnobius upon the Psalmes which Perkins putteth at the yeere 290. but because Perkins in Praepar ad Demon. Probl. and Rivet in his Crit. sac makes it a spacious booke as mentioning on Psal 119. the Pelagian heresie which came up above sixscore yeeres after Arnobius his time I shall not attempt to fight against a shadow Albeit the place being of the way of Adults Baptisme concludeth nothing against what wee maintaine Lâ—do Vives Ludovicus Vives is the next who in his notes upon Austin de Civitate Dei l. 1. cap. 26. saith the Treatise but it 's rather cap. 27 as Hen. Den. more truely quoteth it affirmeth that in times past no man was brought to bee baptized but those that were come to their full growth who having learned what it concerned desired the same But whether hee that lived but in Henry the eighths dayes or Austin whom hee expounds which lived above twelve hundred yeares agoe had better reason to know what was done of old let any sober minde judge Strabo To the same purpose Walefrid Strabo who lived about the yeare 800. seemeth to speake but Origen who was in the yeare 201. according to Osiander or 230. according to Perkins and Vsher hee mentions Paedobaptisme as from the Apostles as well as Austin doth Melivitan And so doth the Milevitan councell in the yeare 402. according to Wolfius say as much that the Catholique Church hath alwayes understood Infants to bee defiled with Adams sinne and according to the rule of faith to bee on that ground namely amongst others for it 's knowne sundry other gounds were of old urged for Paedobaptisme as that Matth. 19. 13 14 15. Suffer c. For of such c. urged in Tertullians time 200. yeares before as appeares by his assaying to take off that ground in his booke De Baptismo before mentioned baptized See the 1. Tome of Councells SECT V. Bucer THe next witnesse is Bucer in his Annotat. upon the 4th of John set out Anno 28. So much as in the Apostolicall writings are written of baptisme is apparent that baptisme was administred to none by the Apostles but to those of whom concerning their regeneration they made no doubt c. I have looked that very booke and a booke distinct from his greater booke on the Evangelists and there is no such words It 's a meere forgery Bucer is againe cited Proposion 6th saying that Christ hath no where plainly commanded that children should bee baptized If the speech had been just thus yet it 's evident his Intent was not that children ought not to bee baptized by vertue of Gods command which is the direct conclusion subscribed to in the explication of it at Wittenberg by him and others as before but that the command was not in so many words expressed but by necessary consequence to bee concluded His booke intituled The groundworke and cause I have not though like testimonies have been answered before SECT VI. Ruffinus THe next is Ruffinus in his exposition upon the Symbol that those at Rome and Aquila that were to bee baptized must first acknowledge and confesse the 12. Articles of the Creed Here Ruffinus is as one against Paedobaptisme By others when Origens authoritie is urged upon Rom. 5. for Paedobaptisme then it is spurious and the words of Ruffinus Now how should one behave himselfe amidst this contradiction of the antipartie Well wee shall ward off both Blowes as they come God willing As for this testimony as much is in the Treatise and the same place brought out of Austin in his 8th Booke of Confessions that albeit the Authors conceale the name of the place where Victorinus was to have made confession of the faith as the custome was namely at Rome Yea but how then saith Austin lib. 4 cont Donat. cap. 13. 14. that it was ever the use of the Churches and that delivered from the Apostles to baptize Infants Verily both are subordinates and not contraries According to the subjects mentioned if speaking of Adults then the former is true if of Infants then the latter is as true Albeit it 's as true after the custome then in use in Ruffinus his time that Infants did make confession by their sureties as according to God they did and doe now confesse their faith so farre as concerneth their baptisme in their parents even as every man Deut. 16. 17. giving as hee was able their males which personally there appeared came not before the Lord empty not any of them but gave scil in their parents offering for them CHAP. VII SECT I. HIs proofes out of Popish writers as Eckius mentioned in proofe of that and of the 7th Proposition Rossensis Cocletus Ennusius and Staphylus to which some adde Bellarmine I doe not much regard because they can play Legerdemaine fast and loose with a trick that they have If they dispute against Calvinists about the sufficiency of Scripture or validitie of humane traditions then Paedobaptisme is a tradition of the Church If against Anabaptists then Eckius in his Enchiridion here cited hath his foure Scripture arguments to prove it to bee of Scripturall authoritie and foundation For Bellarmine hee hath in his book of Baptisme cap. 8. 3 arguments from Scripture for it And although saith hee wee doe not find it commanded expresly that wee should baptize Infants Tamen id colligitur satis aperte ex scripturis ut supra ostendimus Yet it is to bee gathered plainly enough from Scriptures saith Bellarmine as wee have before shewed Wherefore of such if I may say as hee bluntly once spake to his companion If they can with the same breath blow hot and cold let them even eate porridge with the devill if they will I like not their falshood SECT II. OF Lutherans Pomeranus is quoted whose booke of children unborne I cannot meet with and so cannot trace my Authors here And in such a case as they say Travailers and Souldiers may lie by authoritie when none can contradict them But yet what sayes Dr. Pomeranus that for the space of 1200. yeares men erred concerning children the which wee cannot yet willingly would baptize what his intent is by these words of his cannot well bee gathered If hee intend it of all sorts of children that it is an errour to baptize
for this is it which is said Unlesse being converted ye become as little children cleane indeed in body but holy in soule by abstayning from wicked workes shewing saith Clemens that hee would have us such like as hee hath begot out of the Matrix or wombe of the water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for generation meeting with or receiving of or closing with generation scil in baptisme will make us immortall by progresse viz. in good c. I deny not but Clemens alluding to this place of little ones hath sometimes other applications of it not crosse but subordinate to this but I see not how it can otherwise bee understood but that hee maketh a very child here the patterne as cleane in body and holy in soule scil Sacramentally in Baptisme according to that description in washing bodies with pure water and heart sprinkling from an ill conscience scil guilt of sinne Heb. 10. 8. A periphrasis of Baptisme unlesse any say Infants are Innocents cleane from sinne originall and expounding whom hee meanes which here hee sets as the patterne to growne ones hee saith such like as are begotten in or by Baptisme as Gensianus Hervetus on the place noteth comparing Baptisme to the wombe out of which an Infant is borne and so here new borne and so the little one is the pattern to such as will bee saved not as an Infant meerely but as such a little one that is pure in body and soule which here hee further explicateth that is such an one as is begotten againe in Baptisme Hee speaketh not this of adult ones they are the persons that must bee such like they cannot bee both the Patternes and the persons resembling them too the little ones thus holy and thus new borne are the patterne which as soone as borne in a man are new borne Sacramentally in baptisme Their generation and that their new ganeration doe as it were joyne and hang and hand together Concerning Tertullian if his judgement bee in some case for deferring Baptisme yet his glosse upon that ground upon Matth. 19. which according to him requires baptizing of the Persons so invited is absurd and his other expressions de Anima mentioned seeme crosse thereto but for the practise of Paedobaptisme in his time beside◠what Origen about his time testifieth to evince it his own words mentioned before in the beginning of his book de Baptismo and his arguing against the practise of hasting Infants to baptisme doth prove it to bee then in use Cyprian was within this 300. yeers and therefore his testimony may not be slightly put by as before wee shewed his 59. Epistle ad Fidum so opposed in our cause is yet authoritative with some opposites to prove the typicalnesse of the eighth day Amongst the Greeke authors called for that which is recorded to have beene urged in the councell by one of the members of that councell of Neocesarea before mentioned touching the occasion of that Law of baptizing the woman with child come from Paganisme to the faith is of much weight other Greek councells as the 6th councell of Constantinople and Trullo c. are of moment also As for Ignatius his testimony I doe not remember when I read it somewhile since that hee speakes of baptisme of adult or Infants purposely and if hee had so many of the Epistles fathered upon him being spurious and the rest that may bee his being so mixed and corrupted much heed would not bee given to his testimony Eusebius it 's knowne omitted many things of note as where and when Justin was baptized and the story of that famous writer Theognostus of whom and his workes Athanasius makes mention de Synod Nic. decr contra Arrianos quoted by Baronius in his first Tome Anno 330. Of Athanasius Athanasius himself if that Question be his which some have scrupled his testimony quest 125. is full for it for in that we thrice dip the child in water and lift it up againe it signifieth the death of Christ and his rising the third day againe c. the sentence before being the similitude stands thus as Christ died and rose the third day so wee in baptisme die and rise againe for in that c. as before But that is undeniably his owne upon Luke 10. All things are given to mee c. pag. 197. hee makes baptisme to succeed circumcision urging that proofe Col. 2. 12. wherefore saith he when that was come unto which the figure did denote that note and figure ceaseth and resteth for circumcision was the note or figure the laver of regeneration or baptisme is the very thing which was signified this is no other then the Doctrine wee hold forth and whence by Analogy wee deduce the doctrine of Paedobaptism The same also teacheth Epiphanius Anno 396. Of Epiphanius Epiphanius contra haereses contra Epicuraeos there was circumcision of the flesh which served unto the time of the great circumcision scil Baptisme which circumciseth us from our sins and sealeth us into the name of God and contra Corinth Circumcision lasted as a servant for a time untill the greater Circumcision namely the laver of regeneration came in stead and Tom. 2. l. 1. Christ came and fulfilled circumcision having given a perfect circumcision among his mysteries not in one member onely but of the whole body being sealed and circumcised from sinnes and not saving one part of his people that is men onely but the whole people of Christians scil men women and children hee compleateth circumcision by all their circumcising from sinne in baptisme Yea but why then did not Epiphanius use that argument of Paedobaptism against the Collirydians as well as that taken from their interests in Gods Kingdome c. The answer is ready it 's likely that all those heretiques might as well as some others deny Paedobaptisme in a sense if not wholly and what then the argument from Paedobaptisme had been invalid besides it 's not necessary that a man in disproving errour or proving truth should use all the arguments hee hath by him or that it bee concluded hee hath no more arguments that way because hee useth them not Anno 369. What Basil said this way as I finde him quoted by Aretius on Luke 18. I have mentioned formerly I have not time to search him and read him exactly Anno 380. What Gregory Nazianzen hath this way for us yea if strictly expounded how hee is ours we have seene before Anno 405. Of Chrysostome John Chrysostome which Mr. Blackwood makes his owne in his 21. Homil. to the people of Antioch which if not spurious as sundry of them are see Perkins and Rivet yet not understood exclusive And it 's much that Mr. B. that saith pag. 31. hee regards not any authoritie after the first 300. yeares will yet quote the Nicene Councell 325. the Laodicean Councell 308. the Constantinople Councell about 400. Basil 380. and Chrysostome 405. yeers after Christ
as is evident The next is Beza who is also quoted Proposition 7. in his annotations upon Matth. 28. 19. Baptize them in the name of the Father that is in calling upon the name of the Father or rather the name of the Father c. being called upon for they are Beza's words Invocato nomine Patris c. And these Translators should have done well to have rendred the Latine properly But all is in the meaning of the words The authors of the Treatise urge it for a proofe of the persons bapzed calling actually upon the name of God when they are baptized according to Christs institution bring Beza for their proofe Quaeritur therefore whether ever Beza intended that in his words Surely no for it 's known well that Beza stoutly maintaineth Paedobaptisme as an ordinance of Christ Now Infants when they are baptized cannot actually call upon the name of God therefore if Beza say the former that the rule of Christ requireth it of all that are to be baptized according to his mind that they should call upon God at the time of their Baptisme he must affirme the later against his owne light and conscience which to doe with so much deliberation as hee that writeth things upon studie must doe were a crime of a very high nature and God forbid any should charge so worthy a light in the Church with that SECT V. BEza is againe cited for confirmation of the third Proposition in his Annotations upon Matth. 3. 6. John taught those that were to bee baptized this clause is not in my Beza upon the place and admitted none to Baptisme but those that gave testimony that they beleeved the forgivenesse of their sinnes In my Beza's Notes it's rather thus that John admitted not others to his Baptisme then those which seriously professed that they did imbrace the doctrine of free remission of sinnes which how different from that of these translators let others judge It followeth in the booke Such confession was also required of the Catechumens in the primitive Church before Baptisme for in that the Sacraments are seales it is requisite that doctrine or instruction should goe before the use of those things by which the doctrine it selfe is to bee sealed Those words before Baptisme and that reason annexed for in that the Sacraments c. is not in my booke scil Beza's Annotationes majores in N. Test Printed Anno. 1594. But to returne to the testimony Beza intended that John baptized no other of that species of persons Adult then such as made that confession but not simply the Baptisme of any other persons of another sort scil babes hee that is so carefull that any should take advantage to deny that children are not rightly baptized because not dived wholly under water that hee the rather as hee saith upon Matth. 3. 11. doth note such things about the particle In omitted Luke 3. 16. surely hee intended not by affirming such things in reference to Johns hearers thereby to exclude childrens Baptisme Hence that added that such confession was required of the Catechumens in the ancient Church Now then what manner of persons they were which hee affirmeth made such confession of old such like persons for age he here intendeth And no more doth he intend exclusion of Infants from Baptisme by affirming the necessitie of confession in Johns hearers unto Baptisme then by affirming that the same was required of those Catechumens mentioned Let us then see Beza's mind further therein which wee may readily doe in the third place of Beza quoted in this Treatise Proposition 4. where Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. But now your children are holy he is thus cited as saying Out of this contradictors of the truth are revealed As first all those that make Baptisme to be the first entrance to salvation and secondly those that permit all children to bee baptized which was unheard of in the primitive times whereas every one ought to bee instructâ—d in the faith before hee were admitted to baptisme And this testimony is brought to prove the Proposition that in the primitive Church the children both of the faithfull and else scil and of Pagans or Jewes were commonly first instructed c. and then baptized so that Beza's mind in that clause whereas every one ought to bee instructed c. is made and every child whether of the faithfull or Infidell should bee first instructed before hee be baptized and in that sense his second errour he blames of such which permit all children to bee baptized is as much as if hee should intend it as an errour to permit any children at all whether of faithfull or infidell persons to bee baptized before instructed So that Beza is by this made a direct Andipedobaptist as they terme it now for modesty sake But you shall not have Beza thus on your side before wee heare him in his owne words who having before spoken touching the cause why wee admit the Saints children to baptisme scil because they are comprehended in the Covenant c. he addeth Now from hence are confuted not onely Catabaptists which doe reject Infants from baptisme as uncleane but those which make baptisme the first entrance to salvation and so exclude all from salvation which are unbaptized and also those which admit all Infants whatsoever to baptisme scil whether of visible Saints or Infidels as appeares by what hee said before and by what followeth which thing scil such promiscuous baptizing of all sorts hand over head was not heard of in the ancient Church As this at least doth declare in that all adult Infidells were first to bee Catechumens before they were baptized Beza refuteth three things from that clause mentioned and explained now your children are holy and one of them is this fourth Proposition of the Authors and yet by the Authors he is brought to refute onely two things First hee refuteth Catabaptists denying baptisme to beleevers children Secondly he from the same ground refuteth them which maintaine the baptisme of all children whatsoever scil that are not children of visible Saints for if they bee such children hee counteth it rather an errour to deny their baptisme Againe in citing the last part of Beza's words the Authors craftily make it as an opposite sentence to that before Thus secondly those that permit all children to bee baptized c. whereas every one c. as if it were a contrary speech to the former permitting all children c. whereas none at all were to bee baptized of old but such as were Catechumens when Beza maketh this later a reason of the former as before wee shewed Besides the Authors shamefully change and mutilate the last words whereas every one ought c. intending every particular person Infant or Aged when Beza's words are expresly in that all adult Infidells ought first to bee Catachumens before they were to bee baptized Now who is there which doth not even feele this palpable guile and falseshood in the setters forth
of this Treatise in this particular But not to forget what wee noted touching Beza's other testimony on Matth. 3. this place cleareth Beza's intent There speaking of adult persons it may bee affirmed such must bee as the Catechumens of old in point of confession before baptisme and yet the same Author never intend by that assertion to exclude children of such as doe make such confession of faith and repentance from baptisme Beza which holdeth this forth here yet here also refuteth that as errour in Catabaptists to deny Paedobaptisme So that still here is the old fallacie à dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter dictum SECT VI. THe next Author quoted Proposition 1. scil Strigelius upon Acts the 8th as saying that to bee baptized in the name of Jesus is to bee baptized in acknowledging and confessing the name of Jesus I have not and therefore cannot examine the same Albeit this sano sensu hinders not us in that when parents offer their children to baptisme the name of the Lord Jesus is confessed and acknowledged The next testimony is of Luther Proposition 1. whereupon Gen. 48. hee is said to affirme before wee receive the Sacrament of Baptisme and the Lords Supper wee must have faith and in another place as quoting Heb. 2. 4. Rom. 1. 17. Heb. 10. 38. Mark 16. 28. Act. 8. 36. and Rom. 10. 10. to prove that faith is required to baptisme and that without faith the Sacraments profit not but hurt rather the receivers and Proposition 3. hee is quoted againe in his book of the Civill Magistrates as speaking like words and saying wherefore wee hold our selves to the words of Christ He that beleeves and is baptized So that before or else even then present when baptisme is administred there must needs bee faith or else there is contempt of the Divine majesty who offers present grace when as there 's none receive it And Proposition 5. Luther upon giving and receiving the Sacrament Tom. 3. is said to write that in times past it was thus that the Sacrament was administred to none except it were to those which acknowledged and confessed their faith and knew how to receive the same c. and Proposition 7. in his booke of Anabaptisme hee is said to acknowledge that it cannot bee proved by Scripture that childrens baptisme was instituted by Christ or begun by the first Christians after the Apostles for a 1000. yeares since it came to bee in use in the Church and was established by Pope Innocentius This place also doth A. R. quote in his second part of childish baptisme pag. 8. And Proposition 8. Luther is againe quoted as speaking thus in his Postils Young children heare not nor understand the Word of God out of which faith commeth and therefore if so be that commandment of Christ bee followed children ought not to bee baptized Now as for these testimonies of Luther I not having nor being able to procure neare hand the sight of all his Tomes I shall not bee so able to discover the legerdemaine which I verily suspect in citing his testimonies as well as those of some others Yet Luthers meaning in the words mentioned Proposition 1. may well bee expounded by that mentioned Proposition 3. and so according to his judgement rather establishing Paedobaptisme then weakning it for hee holdeth that God at present when they are baptized worketh faith in them and therefore the rather such are to bee baptized Luther in his 4th Tome expounding that Hos 12. 3. Hee tooke his brother by the heele in the wombe scil by a secret instinct and moving of the Spirit as John also by the same moved in the wombe upon Christs approach of which hee giveth this reason because God is not onely the God of growne ones but even of such babes And what wonder is it saith hee that the Spirit is efficacious in Infants in a way we understand not as having also flesh and bones in the wombe as wee have but yet not nourished as wee are And therefore that tenent of Anabaptists is impious and odious who therefore deny baptisme to Infants because they want sense and understanding nor doe they know what is done about them To us they understand not by us they are judged to want sense and understanding but it 's not so to God whose worke they are for God as hee nourisheth them otherwise then hee doth us so doth hee otherwise move their hearts c. Another answer of his see in his second Tome lib. de captiv Babyl title of baptisme Hee saith having spoken before of faith as requisite to the application of the promise opponetur forsan iis c. It may bee to the things before spoken the baptisme of Infants will bee opposed which receive the promise and yet cannot have the faith of baptisme and therefore either faith is not required or Infants baptisme is null Here saith hee I say that which all say that Infants are helped by the faith of others even of them which offer them For as the Word of God is forcible whilst uttered to change the heart of a wicked man which is not lesse deafe and uncapable then any little one so by the Prayer of the Church offering and beleeving even a little one having faith infused is changed cleansed and renewed by him to whom all things are possible For conformation whereof hee brings that example Marke 2. 3 4 5. And in his 7th Tome in his Homily of baptisme hee reckons that erroneous interpretation of Marke 16. 16. is the ground of that dispute against Paedobaptisme because if baptized say some when an Infant and not beleeving then not rightly baptized and so that baptisme is nothing to which saith Luther this is nothing else then if it should bee said if thou beleevest not when thou partakest of the Word or Sacrament it is nothing And so they onely that truely beleeve are truely baptized and others baptized which doe not beleeve they are againe to bee baptized when they doe beleeve scil albeit growne ones when baptized if then hypocrites As for Luthers other two speeches mentioned Proposition 7. and 8. I somewhat wonder if hee should utter them as here expressed that in that booke stiled Lutheri Antilutherana opera fratris Joan. Apobolymaei alias Findeling Minoritae they are not mentioned the scope of the booke being to gather up all Luthers seeming contradictions And hee instanceth in the other de captiv Babyl before mentioned it 's strange that hee misseth those if thus written since it 's evident both by that expression in Luthers greater Catechisme Tom. 3. when hee saith After the same manner doe wee when wee give baptisme to little ones Wee bring the child to the Minister of the Church with this mind and hope that verily it may beleeve But wee doe not baptize it for those things but rather because God hath commandâ—d us so to doe So in that famous story of the concord betweene Luther and the Divines which followed him and
unmarried persons to bee delayed in whom the tentation is prepared c. the Treatise urgeth this testimony to prove that de facto children before they were instructed were not baptized Mr. B. seemes to urge that de jure they ought not As for the first it 's rather a strong proofe that Paedobaptisme was in use in the Church in Tertullians time for supposing Tertullian against Paedobaptisme his testimony is the more valid enemies will not flatter us if they were not baptized why doth hee mention their susceptors or sureties which ran hazzards by being their susceptors Tertullian was not so sottish to oppose an Imaginary abusive practise if no such thing were in rerum natura in his time why doth hee affright persons from being susceptors by the hazzards they runne in their childrens liablenesse to death and to distempers and by the latter their outbreakings into sinne to deceive their susceptors expectations if no such thing it had been dangerous to start such a novellisme if never before practised And indeed Origen contemporary with Tertullian according to Osi inder and Funccius account hee saith in the place quoted in his 14th Hom. on Luke that little ones were in his time baptized All the question is then de Jure how farre the testimony is valid to prove that Infants should not bee baptized some make account that Tertullian was not simply against baptisme of Infants scil if of beleevers but of baptizing Infidell Infants then offered to baptisme as it might be supposed of unmarried persons if Infidels to delay Baptisme others thinke hee intends to deny the absolute necessitie of Baptisme in case children are like to die then to baptize them out of an opinion of such necessitie of it albeit afterwards that hazzard of mortalitie being over they might bee baptized and it 's probable enough out of their doubling of the word necesse si tamen necesse fit c. and truely if Tertullian was against it in his judgement it was one of the dotages of his age as was Montanisme denying second marriages witnesse his booke de Monogamia and hee forgot himselfe if that was his intention to deny childrens right to baptisme since that in his booke de anima cap. 21. speaking before that every soule hath an evill spirit in it he addeth so that the nativitie of none almost is cleane at least if borne of Pagans for here it is that the Apostle saith that one borne of either sex being sanctified hee is holy as well by the prerogative of the seed as by the discipline of instruction but saith hee else they were borne uncleane but now notwithstanding hee would have it to bee understood that the children of the faithfull are devoted to holinesse and consequently to salvation that in respect of these pledges of hope hee might patronise marriages which hee had judged to bee retained otherwise scil if that had not been his meaning hee would have mentioned that definition of the Lord unlesse any one bee borne againe of water and of the Spirit hee shall not enter into the kingdome of God that is shall not bee holy and then addeth immediatly cap. 22. as his conclusion so that every soule is so long reckoned to bee in Adam till they be recounted to bee in Christ and so long unclean untill recounted scil in Christ And in his booke against Marcion lib. 4. p. 92. but behold how God loveth little children sc of the Church in that he teacheth that those which would bee for ever great must bee such as they are and brings that as another argument of it that God was so gratious to the Aegyptian Midwives for sparing of the Jewes children so that hee speakes not this of all children but of those of the Church as also that which hee saith de anima hee speaketh it not of all sorts but of the children of the faithfull as is evident And hence I will make bold after Master Blackwoods example to make some observations 1 That Tertullian accounted not all children alike in point of birth cleannesse but some cleane others uncleane 2 That hee accounted that holinesse of children mentioned 1 Cor. 7. to bee no civill holinesse of legitimacy or creature holinesse of holinesse to use but a holinesse of a higher nature such as implyeth right at least externall of entring in Gods kingdome making this of being holy to be one with that or to include it scil according to men and to include as much as to bee accounted in Christ cap. 22. the beginning 3 That children of beleevers come to bee holy in this sense mentioned not by instruction of discipline meerely of which they are capable when they come to yeers but by being borne of either parents sanctified or the faithfull or persons laying hold on Gods covenant c. for hee maketh being borne of either parents sanctified and children of the faithfull c. one they are holy as well by prerogative of seed saith hee of which they are partakers as soone as they are borne as by institution of discipline 4 That he maketh this the force of the Apostles argument to perswade to retaine marriages in question in regard of such pledges of hope children thus holy springing from married persons whereof one at least is a beleever c. 5 That therefore Zwinglius was not the first author as some say of that interpretation that by the sanctifying of either Sex by that other being faithfull children come to bee holy with holinesse of priviledge hence that of being holy by prerogative of seed scil quat covenant seed And from the other place it appeares that Tertullian judged the children of the Jewes to bee not in a bare carnall covenant or beloved with a meere common respect of God as others but in the judgement of his charitie hee accounts them beloved with a speciall love of God so as to become patternes to such as are alwayes great in Gods favour as well as otherwise Now how these things will stand with Tertullians denying them baptisme I leave to all judicious and sober minds to determine hee may forsake his owne principles in this as in other things hee did but if hee hold to the same hee must bee ours and not yours But let us suppose Tertullians judgement against paedobaptisme hee is not the first that gave erroneous counsell and held erroneous tenents though he bee the first that ever advised so farre as I finde in authors that infants baptisme should bee delayed and his judgement may not carry it but the grounds of his judgement if they are Scripture proofe and first he acknowledgeth the argument taken from Mat. 19. Suffer little children to come unto me to enforce baptisme of these there intended albeit hee expounds that of their comming to Christ by baptisme to bee understood of their comming when they are growne up when they know Christ when they aske it when they understand the right of Baptisme and can pray and fast But Mr. B. which cleaveth
that their Infants they carried in their armes or led in their hands lost that which they had gotten in the beginning of their birth when the day of judgement comes they will say wee have done nothing neither did we leaving the meate and the cup of the Lord hasten willingly to profane defilements c. Thus farre Mr. B. out of Cyprian Then it seemes in Cyprians time Infants were partakers of the Lords Supper as well as of baptism that birth wherein they had first got that which at the heathen Altars they lost scil that good they got by it which Sacramentally was their birth that is new birth for they rather added to what they got in their naturall birth scil sinne then lost at these sacrifices If in this Epistle Infants baptisme bee thus intimated why saith Mr. B. a little before as a ground of his challenge of his Epistle to Fidus that he findes it mentioned but once he found what was in this Epistle de Lapsis too why else mentioneth hee the same and if both were the errours of Cyprian and the rest then Cyprians judgement was for it surely albeit it is supposed hee erred in it and why then is Baronius brought in to prove it was not Cyprians judgement when Mr. B. hath assayed to prove it that it was his errour was that the errour of Cyprians judgement the which he never held but yet let us heare what Baronius can say to it Now I confesse Baronius hath this passage verbatim which Mr. B. quoteth onely he hath not Mr. B's Parenthesis that it was spoken of Infants Baptisme the Page is a little mistaken it is not Page 398. but Page 415. but Mr. B. is quite out in this application of that passage which is mentioned in reference onely to the controversie about the baptisme of heretiques which hee wresteth grossely as if intended of the matter of baptisme of Infants and if Mr. B. had but read Baronius a few lines before hee would never thus have in print falsified an authors Testimony Baronius discoursing about Traditions brings in Pope Stephen using that weapon in the case of baptisme of heretiques against Cyprian who erred therein scil that it being by tradition received that the Baptisme of heretiques might in case bee valid nothing should bee acted contrary to that tradition as it was by Cyprian and the other Bishops with him nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est agatur scil saith Baronius quoting Stephens words and after subjoyneth If Cyprian had been sure that scil that doctrine mentioned about the validitie of Heretiques baptisme had been an Apostolicall tradition as Stephen urgeth it to bee and not contrary to holy Scriptures according to sound and sincere opinion without doubt saith Baronius hee had rested in it and for this end hee quoteth Cyprians 74. Epistle ad Pompeium contra Epist Steph. as opening the case intended where Cyprian himselfe writeth that fragment of Stephens Epistle nihil innovetur c. as urged against him in the businesse of the baptisme of Heretiques and Euseb lib. 7. eccles cap. 2. and 3. speakes of the case betwixt Stephen and Cyprian out of Letters of Dionysius Alexandrinus about it citing it as the great question then moved scil whether such as returned from any heresie should bee purged by baptisme In that the custome was to receive such onely by prayer and imposition of hands And addes cap. 3. that Cyprian hee held that such as returned from errour were no other way to bee purged then by baptisme But Stephen mentioned that nothing in this case should be innovated besides that old tradition scil of receiving such againe onely by prayer and imposition of hands where Mr. B. comparing the place in Baronius with this in Eusebius may fully satisfie himselfe in his printed errours But to come yet closer verily Stephen Bishop of Rome that was so inraged against Cyprian for that he brought in that innovation of rebaptizing persons that were baptized by heretiques that hee writ hee would have no Church communion with such as did rebaptise all sorts of heretiques as you may perceive by the Epistle of Dionysius to Xistus Stephens successour Euseb l. 7. c. 3 4 5. hee would have expressed as much violence against Cyprian and his Bishops with him for that which they determined in the case of Paedobaptisme if that had beene accounted an innovation in those times or contrary to Apostolicall tradition as hee thought the other was or that as the treatise would assay to prove from Ruffinus upon the Symboll that the custome at Rome was to baptize such as made confession of the articles of the Symbol and so not Infants no assuredly it was otherwise in Rome then they baptized Infants as well as others else Cyprian had heard of it to purpose from this Roman bishop and besides the story of Lucius and Elcutherius long before Stephens time sheweth what was the practise at Rome surely how ever some snapper at Origens Testimony who was about 20. yeeres before this for saying Infants baptisme was delivered to the Church from the Apostles yet if it had beene thought otherwise in Cyprians time within a while after other Bishops would have withdrawne the right hand of fellowship for innovating contrary or besides Apostolicall Tradition But to returne to Mr. B. if hee scruple Cyprians Epistle to Fidus hee may I thinke satisfie himselfe if hee consider Jeroms testimony for it in the forequoted place Also that testimony for it from the fifth Councell of Carthage viz. Chap. 6. citeth this Epistle of Cyprian ad Fidum so doth Austin often not onely in his 28th Epistle to Jerome but Sermon the 14. upon the words of the Apostle so in his first booke de pecc merit remiss and in his third booke also c. 5. hee citeth that Epistle against Pelagius verily if there had been any such question imagined in those dayes of the spuriousnesse of that Epistle Pelagius and his followers would soon have blunted that weapon as oft as sharpned against them But some will say here is just the proverb fulfilled Aske my fellow whether I am a theefe Austin was as rotten and corrupt in his principles about Paedobaptisme as was Cyprian Cyprian looked at them as incurring eternall judgement that were not baptized so did hee oft urging Iohn 3. 5. 6. 53. hee thought all were to bee baptized whether of beleevers or otherwise so did Austin hee thought Infants had faith and that because of originall sinne conveyed therefore to bee baptized according to that testimony of Origens Propter hoc c. For this even because of originall sinne they must be baptized c. To this I answer as before admit Austin held out that upon Corrupt grounds so did he hold the administration of Baptisme to adult persons upon grounds of necessitie thereof to salvation and purging away sin yea the Lords Supper too as so necessary to growne persons John 6. 53. also yet none will make these ordinances
Church ought not to bee baptized but to stay till the babe they went with were brought forth lest that when shee were baptized it might seeme that the child in her wombe was baptized with her as being altogether united to her whence it will come to passe that after the babe is borne either it may bee not left unenlightned or unbaptized or if it bee baptized it may bee thought that it is rebaptized This hee maketh the occasion of the Law of that antient not Latine but Greeke councell which was a good while before the first Nicene Councell And it is very remarkable what was the occasion it was double as is evident 1. That they might avoyd the mischiefe of leaving babes unbaptized 2. That they might avoyd the other of rebaptizing two grand hinges of Anabaptisme these were such mischiefes as it seemes in their eyes that they would not have expressions let fall by them that might any way occasion the same so that both these in those times were rather inter borrenda then recipienda But let us heare what Balsamon addeth further there speaking of such Infants that they could not make promise c. for how it is with the babe in the wombe none can enquire nor be suretie for them saith he but Infants scil that are borne doe affirme by those which are their susceptors and are accounted to bee actually enlightned or baptized with divine illustration or divine baptisme they then accounted baptisme of Infants no Antichristian baptisme as the Authors of this Treatise and as John Spilsbury Mr. Blackwood and Henry Denne doe but divine Baptisme the Baptisme of the Lord wherefore I conclude that this testimony is grosly abused by Hugo Grotius SECT III. Rupertus Tritiensis THe next Author quoted is Rupertus Tritiensis l. 4. de divinis Officiis c. 18. both for the confirmation of the 4th and 7th proposition the same is urged by A. R. also to like purpose but by this authors leave that there bee no guile hid I shall make bold to transcribe the very words of Rupertus Abbas Tritiensis of which the Treatise mentioned some pieces scil It was the custome of old in the holy Church not to celebrate the Sacrament of regeneration at any other time scil then Easter and Pentecost of which hee spake before unlesse in those unto whom possibly danger might accrue by the comming of some infirmity or danger of death upon them this exception which is in his the very quaesitum the Treatise and A. R. leave wholly out how candidly they deale herein let all judge All the off-spring of the Church almost which throughout the whole yeare it could beget anew by the preaching of the word the solemnitie of Easter approaching gave in their names this day and throughout the following dayes unto the very solemnitie it selfe of Easter each one hearing the rule of faith whence also such an one was called a Catechumen for a Catechumen faith Rupertus is by interpretation a hearer both the suckling and the growne person at length at the full time after the full of the moone in the solemnitie at the holy Font repeating the symboll with full beleefe It scil the off-spring of the Church did die and rise againe with Christ but after Christianitie increased and that net of the Gospell was filled with Fish because that it was dangerous to delay so great a multitude by reason of the casualtie of death which in a multitude of men is manifold especially in regard of a company of Infants of Christian Parents much encreasing whose tender life is very oft by a small occasion cut off it seemed good to the holy Church leave off baptisme being granted every where yea offered to prevent all dangers and yet in a few to celebrate the solemnitie of baptisme with the resurrection of the Lord to which it is like c. by this that hath been said that which the Treatise and A. R. intend to disprove is rather confirmed and the guilefull wresting of the testimony discovered for besides what hath been before shewed that Infants baptisme was before this custome of baptisme at Easter and Pentecest came up and likewise whilst it was held up Infants being then and there baptized as well as at other times as by Austins testimony Serm. 4. ad Neoph. appeared this testimony also tells us 1 That baptisme of all sorts of persons in case of weakenesse and danger at other times was in use of old 2 That sucklings as well as growne ones were accounted under the notion of the off-spring of the Church begotten by the word scil in their parents which being begotten thereby in their right also their children were in churched with them 3 Confession of faith with full beleefe by others in stead of sucklings was counted as their confession the lactati as well as the grandescentes are said to make such confession of faith which they could not doe but by others 4 That there were present at this solemnitie a multitude of Infants as well as growne ones which did Sacramentally die and rise with Christ of old 5 That they baptized not of old all sorts of children at such times but onely the Infants of Christians and that upon the grounds of mortalitie and other weakenesse and hazzard was there made a change as well in respect of the growne part of the multitude as the Infants onely 6 That the change that was made upon the grounds of mortalitie and increase of the multitude was not in respect of the subjects that afterwards Infants should bee baptized whereas onely growne ones before were baptized for both sorts were before and after that custome came up baptized as wee proved but it was onely in respect of the place where and season when that whereas of old they used to come to some one great Citie and that at these seasons of yeare onely now passim every where and at any other time they might bee baptized onely some few that were borne a little before these solemne times as Rupertus in his other bookes mentioneth were reserved to bee then baptized to grace as it were the solemnitie And this may fully answer that testimony which this Treatise Proposition 7. and A. R. also urge out of Joannes Beemius de moribus Gentium speaking to like purpose So then Rupertus Tritiensis and his companion are both as much abused herein as other witnesses produced or rather traduced SECT IIII. Cassander THe next witnesse is Cassander a stout adversary to them yet fetched in by the Authors of this Treatise to prove the 4th and 7th Proposition Cassander in l. de Infantium baptismo is said to say It is certaine that some beleevers in times past have with holden baptisme from their children untill they were growne and could understand and remember the mysteries of their faith yea also counselled not to administer baptisme as by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen appeareth And Proposition 7. Cassander in his booke de Infantium baptismo saith