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
That though imposition of hands did sometimes signifie and conveigh extraordinary miraculary gifts and callings to offices upon men yet imposition did betoken usually ordinary grace and things for men and children as we shewed afore and more might be shewed out of Hebr. 6.2 The third Argument which Mr. T. presents to us as ours out of these texts of Matth. 19. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. is this Exerci p. 19. They may be baptized whose is the kingdom of heaven But of infants is the kingdom of heaven Erge 1. Mr. T. Answ The Major saith he is true if it be understood of those whose is the kingdom of heaven when it appears the kingdom of heaven belongs to them Secondly It is not said in the text of infants is the kingdom of heaven but of such it the kingdom of heaven And Christ expounds what he means Mar. 10.25 Euk. 18.17 to wit of them who in humilitie of mind are like little children as it is Matt. 18.3 4. but if of such be to be expounded as Beza would annotat in Mat. 19.14 of these and the like as above Mat. 18. it is not proved from thence that the kingdom of heaven perteins to all infants of beleevers but to them whom he blessed and to those persons who either are so blessed or are converted and humble as little children Whence we deny first the major if taken universally Secondly the minor as it is put indefinitely We answer To what Mr. T. saith in the first place Animadverse 1 That Mr. T. his answer to the major is a meer repetition if not a begging of the question that none whiles infants are to be baptized 2 There was a contrary rule in the old Testament and part of the New that infants of reputed beleevers should have the first seal of circumcision 3 There is no such rule for limitation as Mr. Tombes mentions expressed in all the New Testament That none may be baptized till it appeared the kingdom of heaven belonged to them as Mr. Tombes means For he must mean a certaintie of appearance or else he saith little to purpose For federall right was an appearance in the old Testament I have no list now to dispute upon the faith or confession mentioned usually at the baptizing of men by John Baptist and some others Their words short and generall that Christ was the Son of God or that they were sinners and their affections cold for any good fruits we can find that followed from most towards Christ all his life time or to his disciples but many times bad some called Disciples falling off from Christ Job 6.66 Others such as though called beleevers yet Christ would not commit himself to them knowing what was in them Joh. 2.23 24 25. Ananias Saphira and Simon Magus foully falling away anon after their baptisme But this I would fain know of the Anabaptists all things considered first whether there be a rule in the New Testament in so many words as they require for infant baptisme touching baptizing people of ripe yeers and injoyned upon them afore their baptisme as may put it out of doubt or at least make a close spirituall discovery that to them did belong the kingdom of heaven Secondly whether it be not as good an appearance that the kingdom of God belongs to the infants of a standing professor manifesting his faith by many spirituall experiences because it is said by God I am the God of thee and thy seed which I trust Mr. T. will acknowledge to be true in the New Testament to beleeving parents to apply it to themselves concerning their infants as is that appearance that the kingdome of God belongs to a sudden confessour of ripe yeers that he is a sinner that Christ is the Son of God that he desires to be baptized heard and seen by mans sences but since yesterday or the day before or a short time since I appeal to the generall practise of the Anabaptists in their re-baptizing seriously to understand what I say I know how some would heighten that generall confession that Christ was the Son of God from the opposition made against it in Christs time But let them not forget that if this confession by their grant went along with baptisme that then it was entertained as well as baptisme And the chief Priests and Elders of the people durst not say Johns baptisme was from men For they feared the people * Matt. 21.25 Mar. 11.29 lest the people should stone them * Luk. 20.6 The people were got to such a head as to hurl away fear of being baptized according to the concomitants thereof multitudes coming from all parts to be baptized Matth. 3. none controuling that we read yea the Sadduces and Pharisees also offered themselves to baptisme ibid. Matth. 3.7 And for Christ the Rulers durst not take him on the feast day for fear of an uprore among the people Matth. 26.5 Adde to all that at Johns baptizing the multitudes there is no mention of any thing but of confessing their sins and that they might do without any shew of danger of persecution and many wretched men may do and have little right to the kingdom of God Again we answer to that Mr. T. speaks Secondly thus 1 That Mr. T. doth not stand to his exposition of that sentence Of such is the kingdom of heaven not to signifie infants but humble men For Mr. T. speaks after with an if if of such be otherwise to be expounded then so and so he answers Atque iter explorat Mr. T. doth but try which way he may go which nay I will be driven 2 Though we have said much already * See before on our form of argument on these texts Matth. 19. Mar 10. Luk. 18. for proof that of such must relate to the infants yet we now adde this 1 That of such is the kingdom of God is given as a reason why the disciples should suffer little children to come unto him For saith he of such is the kingdome of God Now this would have been but a strange peece of sence from Christs mouth suffer little children to come c. For heaven belongs to humble men of ripe yeers 2 That therefore the reason may hold good children must at least be included in such as a part 3 That little children must be mainly included because these are propounded as the originall as it were the humble men but the copie These men do but write after those infants as their sample or pattern Obj. But Mr. T. saith Christ expounds the word such Mar. 10.15 Luk. 18.17 of men who in humilitie of mind are little children Ans Mr. T. must not call Christs occasionall discourses and allusions expositions See Luk. 14.15 For at a civill feast he takes occasion to speak of a spirituall eating in the kingdom of heaven yet this is not the exposition of that A multitude of like instances might be given So when Christ saith here Mar. 10.15 Whosoever
thus Exercit. Sect. 3. If baptisme be not granted to the infants of beleevers then the grace of God will be more restrained in the new Testament then in the old But this is not to be affirmed therefore baptisme is to be granted to infants of beleevers These are all the forms of argument from Gen. Animadvers 17.7 c. as Mr. T. reports but he reports not all the forms nor the all of those forms he reports For with great injurie to these three arguments some materiall thing is left out of every one of them by Mr. T. as we shall plainly declare when we come to animadvert upon his answers to them Mean while let us tell the Reader that there are other forms of argument drawn from Gen. 17.7 c. and long since in print See Mr. Ainsworths Answer to the Anabaptists and those to our apprehension very considerable and to be put in the first place in this dispute according to order of method if not of nature too Therefore let the Reader that ingenuously reads to know and not to quarrell that he may not know patiently give us leave to set them down and briefly urge the vigour of them and then we will lay aside all to give him those short notes we have to Mr. T. his Exercitation Our first form of argument from Gen. 17.7 c. is this urged by Mr. Ainsw in his book against the Anabaptists Where there is a command for a thing never remanded or contramanded there the thing is still in force But there is a command for signeing the Infants of a believer with the signe of the Covenant of grace Gen. 17.7.9 never yet remanded or contramanded therefore the signing Believers children with the signe of the Covenant of grace namely Baptisme now is still in force So he For the confirmation of the Minor If any where there is any Institution of baptizing only men of ripe yeares then in Matth. 28. But not there as we shall see more after meane while the Argument hence against baptizing of Believers Infants lyes not 1 In the order of words for the order is inverted and contrary Mar. 1.4 2 Not in the affirmativenesse one affirmative without a determinating word expressed doth not take off another affirmative 3 The universal terme cannot note the subject of Baptisme viz. All Nations For then all are to be baptised And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would answer in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to answer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 observe that Nations here mentioned well answer to Nations Gen. 17. explained Rom. 4. Gal. 3. That as Infants of believing Abraham were to be circumcised so the Infants of believing Gentiles to be baptised 4 Not the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if that must needs signifie make Disciples For 1 Its unlikely that so great a controversie as the Anabap make of the Subject of Baptisme should have no clearer an Institution then a Gr. criticisme of taking one sence of a word that is taken divers wayes For Significat docere in Mat. 28. Legh Crit. S. Novar in Mat. 28.20 Aliquando est verbum transit pro docere ut Mat. 28. Whitak Descript The great Arias renders it onely Docete teach So the renowned Vatablus so the Syr◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Arab. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So many others which for brevity we omit 2 As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in v. 19. so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 20. therfore most likely in v. 19. it signifies only a generall teaching And so the great Critick learned men in Gr. tongue That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to teach them that are strangers to Doctrine that they may become Disciples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to teach them that are Disciples So that here in v. 19. is not meant an exact compleat platforme of Christs commission to the Apostles For here is no mention of the holy Supper but only the naming of the two more usuall things viz. teaching and baptizing and not the matter of subject of the administration of Baptisme 3 The holy Ghost renders this text Mar. 16.15 by plaine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preach the Gospel 4 If the Greek word should be taken in that peculiar sense then the sentence would run thus therefore make all Nations disciples which for these 1600 yeers was never done in any nation 5 Nor can the gender in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to the neuter gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie that the children of beleevers ought not to be baptized For if we stick so precisely to the gender then women are not to be baptized If we keep to the gender as to relate to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the children of beleevers are called disciples Act. 15. 10. They upon whose necks the false teachers would put the yoke of circumcision are called disciples But the yoke of circumcision was put upon children as well as men and according to their institution upon children of eight dayes old Gen. 17.12 and so to continue unlesse in some great impediment as in the wildernesse And therefore out of doubt those false teachers that urged here that the grown disciples should be circumcised urged that their children should be circumcised also Therefore children are called disciples For which two Reasons 1 The children are reckned with the parents in all ordinances communicable to both by warrant of Scripture As till the Jews were broken off Rom. 11. Till the vineyard was let out Luke 20. Circumcision went along with the parents to children when parents lost it the children lost it When Ishmael was cast out of the Church his posteritie was not circumcised that we read of By the same proportion baptisme goes along from parents to children 2 There is a double preaching and a double Sacrament A preaching to the heart and to the eare An innitiating and a corroborating Sacrament God can preach to the heart when not to the eare He a Spirit can preach to a spirit without sentences and so to children This preaching is most sutable to infants because thus man is altogether passive so the innitiating Sacrament is fit for infants because in that they can be but passive The soul of an infant is out of the body all one with an Angel And therfore one defines a soul An Angel in a body If the body cannot act yet God can act without the body As we see great revelations visions c. were given when the body was asleep and unusefull See the Patriarches c. And Paul saw a most glorious vision when he had no use of his body 2 Cor. 12. To make the inward worke of grace to depend on the body is like the Pelagians and Arminians yea worse to make a worke depend not only on reason but on sence 2 Forme of Argum. from Gen. 17. is this to whom the Covenant in force runs in the same tenor in the
of circumcision being onely accidentally and extraordinarily excepted upon the aforesaid reasons no more then the Israelites fourty yeers journey in the wildernesse hindering circumcision so long did detract from the ordinary institution and ground thereof And therefore we Ans To both the conclusions that the claim to this promise which Mr. Tombes confesseth * Exercitat Sect. 1. p. 2. 3. to be Evangelical in the substance I am the God of thee and of thy SEED was the adequate reason in the ordinary prosecution of circumcising For though the institution then is to Abrahams family and to the males c. yet the ground is the promise I am thy God and the God of thy seed And so federate and to be signed are convertible in regard of the ground upon which it followed that Abraham was to have a Gentile seed Rom. 4. Gal. 3. to which the same promise should run I am your God therefore the God of your seed However if federate and to be signed were not convertible terms but onely this true that all federate are to be signed as thus such as to whom the promise is given I am your God and so of your seed being circumcised their children by nature or adoption as it is Gen. 17.12 13. ought to be circumcised thus much would serve our turns out of Gen. 17. for the baptisme of beleevers children Though we could not turn the proposition convertibly that all circumcised or baptized are truly and effectually federate in covenant But how it may be turned we have shewed afore And thus I leave the ingenuous Reader to judge how great or how little reason Mr. T. hath to deny the major or minor proposition of the 1 Argument out of Gen. 17. And to his reason of denying the minor Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 5. because saith he those children of beleeving Gentiles are Abrahams children who are his spirituall seed according to the election of grace by faith which are not known to us but by profession or speciall revelation We answer That we must beware of circumcising and cutting off the tenor of the covenant taking onely thus much as many do I am thy God or drawing it out beyond its length as others do thus I am the God of thee and thy seeds feed but take it evenly up as God layes it down just thus I am the God of thee and thy seed therefore give the 1. signe or seal and then it is easily resolved who are Abrahams seed and to be signed among the Gentiles namely he that beleeves that God is his God and the God of his seed may signe his seed with baptisme the parent knowing his children belong to it by the revelation of the Word and his own confession of faith in his heart and mouth CHAP. III. 2 ARgument saith Mr. T. is thus formed Exercit. Sect. 2. To whom circumcision did agree to them baptisme doth agree * But to Infants circumcision did agree therefore also baptisme The major is thus proved If the baptisme of Christ succeeds into the place of circumcision then baptisme belongs to them that circumcision belonged to But the antecedent is true there also the consequent The minor is proved to be true because Colos 2.11 12. it is said that the Colossians were circumcised because they were buried with Christ in baptisme Here we must complain again Animadvers that somewhat is most injuriously left out of the minor proposition of the former syllogisme namely of that proposition above noted with * But to Infants circumcision did agree where the words OF BELEEVERS are left out which should necessarily have been put in thus But to infants of beleevers circumcision did agree The leaving out of which words how great an inconvenience it would bring to the state of the question c. every ordinarie capacitie will easily conceive For answer Exercit. p. 5. This Argument saith Mr. T. supposeth baptisme to succeed in the place of circumcision which may be understood divers wayes 1 So as that the sence be that those persons be to be baptized which heretofore by Gods command were to be circumcised And in this sence the argument must proceed if it conclude to the purpose But in this sence it is false for no females were to be circumcised which yet are to be baptized Act. 16.14 15. And beleevers out of Abrahams house as Lot Melchisedech Job were not to be circumcised but beleeving Gentiles are universally to be baptized We answer 1. Animadvers That collations of the old and new Testament must be adidem to the very point in hand thus that those persons that are capable of the materiall signe of baptisme are to be baptized as those which were capable of circumcision in the old Testament were to be circumcised by Gods command But all male infants of beleevers of Abrahams race being capable of circumcision were to be circumcised according to Gods command unlesse some extraordinary let stept in for a time as in Moses child and in the Israelites for fourty yeers in the wildernesse therefore all infants of beleevers both male and female being capable of baptisme are to be baptized unlesse this rule be observed we shall hardly allow any deductions from the old Testament for our use in the New 2 In our illations and inferences from the old Testament we must not throw away all the command upon a promise there because the New Testaments practise extends it further upon the same promise It is affirmative in Gen. 17. that male infants of beleevers may have the 1. signe to wit circumcision upon this ground that God will be the God of them and of their seed it is extended further in practise in the New Testament that all infants male and female of beleeving parents may be baptized because the promise I am the God of thy seed beleever runs as well to females as to males Act. 2. The promise is to you and your children whether male or female And there is no impediment in nature to hinder their capacitie of baptisme as there was of circumcision But as the mothers were not circumcised because of naturall impediment so their daughter infants were not So in the New Testament the mothers were baptized because there was no such impediment Act. 16.14 25. therefore by proportion their infant-daughters Chap. 2. in answer to Mr. T. his 4. Except and 1. partic Or we may say further of female infants circumcision beside that we said afore that they were circumcised in their fathers being begotten of them that were circumcised in their flesh they were generated of them that had the filthy foreskin as it was then accounted cut off and so descended of parents refined as it were by that naturall alteration Therefore female infants also may be baptized according to their naturall capacitie in person as formerly they were circumcised according to their capacitie in their lineage 3 Alwayes in the analogie between the old Testament and the
never granted grace is not denyed to an excommunicated person who is inhibited the Lords Supper the grace of God is free whether we understand it of the divine affection or the effects of it nor can be made larger or narrower by our act 3. Yet it is not absurd to say that in respect of some priviledges the grace of God is more contracted in the New Testament then in the Old For instance no family hath now the priviledge that was granted to Abrahams family that out of it Christ should be born no man besides Abraham is called The Father of the Faithfull no woman besides one The mother of Christ neverthelesse simply the grace of God is said to be larger in the New Testament by reason of the revelation of the Gospell imparted to all Nations the more abundant communication of the holy Spirit and more plain manifestation of the mystery of the Gospel I would have it weighed whether those phrases of the Apostle Rom. 11.21 as the naturall branches vers 24. The wild Olive by Nature were graffed contrary to Nature These which be naturall branches do not sufficiently imply That the Jews children by their birth had a priviledge beyond the Gentiles children In the frame of this third Argument from Gen. 17. First Animadver these words are very prejudiciously left out in the major or 1 Proposition Then the grace of God * The words unjustly left out in the administration of the first Seal will be more restrained in the New Testament then in the Old 2. The word Grace is disadvantageously put for Priviledge To Master T. his Answer as he hath layd the Argument and first to his first Answer That we give not the Lords Supper to children to whom the Passeover was given We Reply 1. That he speaks not ad idem to the point in hand For this doth not take off the straitning the New Testament above the old in the first seale 2ly Our argument proceeds not of Gods limiting but of mens straitning we dispute not against God but against Anabaptists streitning where God hath not limited 3ly Mr T. in his 1 Section proclaimes the Latitude of the New Testament above the Old divers times but here he evens them again and tells us we have but Quid pro quo if we have got in the first Sacrament we have lost it in the second To his 2. Answer of Gods grace not tyed to Sacraments 1. Here seemes to be an eluding of the true intent of our Argument by the equivocal acception of the word Grace for if any forme it of Gods Grace being restrained it is rather meant of Grace signifying the favour of God manifested to us then of Grace signifying the Graces of Gods Spirit inherent in us 2. Though Mr. T. saith here Grace is not tyed to Sacraments yet the whole designe of his Exercitation is so to tye them together that Sacraments without manifestation of grace are nothing with him 3. Therefore we retort That where the first Sacrament is more inhibited and restrained there the favour of God and the gifts of grace are lesse to be expected And therefore though we cannot straighten Gods grace in it selfe yet we do unwarrantably the comfortable assurance thereof when we refuse the sign that God hath given us of that he hath or will give To his 3. Answer That in some priviledges the grace of God is more contracted in the New Testament than in the Old c. 1. We Reply If we speak of some particular priviledges it is a priviledge of the New Testament not to have them to wit any of the Jewish Ceremonies Or that there should be another family besides Abrahams line of whom Christ should be born 2. We Reply that Mr T. hath matched one great Old Testament priviledge with alike in the New if he had but placed it right among the New and not among the Old Namely that Mary the mother of Christ in the New Testament answers to the promise of him to come of Abraham in the Old But if we speak of the priviledge of the New Testament in generall it must be more large than that of the Old or else God would never have found such fault with the Old as in stead thereof to make a New Heb. 8.6 7 8. Observe in the margent on the 6. verse Covenant is rendred Testament by our translation 3. Upon Mr T. his confession That simply the grace of God is said to be larger in the New Testament by reason first of the Revelation of the Gospell to all Nations secondly of more abundant Communication of the holy Spirit thirdly of more plain Manifestation of the Mystery of the Gospell we retort then sure beleevers in the New Testament have lesse reason to have a meaner opinion of their children to reject them farther off from the 1 Seal then they of the Old there being no precept for that rejection The Parent knows more receives more grace now generally by Mr. T. his intimation why then must all this abundance of revelations and effusion of spirit fall besides our children that none should be sanctified in their tender years as Samuel Iohn Baptist and the little ones Mar. 10. To that Rom. 11.21 24. We say we have considered it and advised with learned Authors yet neither they nor I can see more then this That the Jews of whom the Apostle speaks were naturall children taken in its naturall sence of Abraham to whom immediately was the great priviledge Rom. 3.2 Of the Oracle of God and his promise was immediately vivâ voce by expresse words made and delivered Gen. 17. and so they had the priviledge also to heare sooner of it and it continued a long time in their line in the former ages of the World and so had the 1. conveighance of the 1. Seale to them and their children But Firstnesse in order or time doth not give any more spirituall right to an Ordinance Act. 13.46 Nor is it the naturalnesse see Ismael and his posterity but the spiritualnesse of the father that he be a Believer that gives priviledge to the child And therefore we conclude that faith being the condition of this Covenant Gen. 17. to Abraham as Mr Tombes confest afore § 1. and so thereupon the 1. Seal was given to his naturall borne infants So now a believing Parent by faith being of the seed of Abraham Gal. 3. Rom. 4. the 1. Seal by the same proportion is due to his naturall borne infants And this is all the heft we can find in this place upon weighing of it For Mr Tombes his justice in denying the major or consequence or minor of this argument I leave to the candid Reader to judge from what we have said The summe of the Answer to the Arguments Exercitat §. 3. Conclu drawn from Gen. 17.17 is this The Sacraments are not to be administred according to rules taken from our reasonings but Gods appointment Rightly doth Mr Ball forenamed in the Book
such after higher things to such little children whiles little children how much more may that which in nature antecedes and goes before these namely baptisme be administred to them whiles such little children For the clearing this of imposition of hands learned Pareus hath these words on Hebr. 6.2 Some saith he conjoyn the two heads of Baptismes and imposition of hands because as there were two ranks of Catechumeni catechized persons so there was a two fold innitiating ceremony 1 Those of ripe yeers of the heathen did before their baptisme recite the Articles of the Creed touching the Christian faith And this was the catechising or doctrine of Baptismes 2. The Infants of Christians who by the right of the promise were baptized in their infancie who being past their childhood were received into the Church by imposition of hands where or at which time they first recited the same heads or Articles of faith before the Church And this was the doctrine of imposition of hands So Pareus So Calvin Bullinger August Marlorat Hofman Theophylact onely they spake more home if you precisely observe their words which are C these The doctrine of Baptismes imposition of hands and of the resurrection of the dead and the last judgement ought to be read conjoynedly with a certain Apposition as the Grammarians call it in this sence Not laying again the foundation of repentance of faith in God of the resurrection of the dead which is the doctrine of Baptisme and Imposition of hands Therefore if you include in a parenthesis these two sentences the doctrines of Baptismes and Imposition of hands the context will run more fluently For unlesse you read it appositively this absurditie will follow that the same thing will be twise repeated For what is the doctrine of Baptisme but that which he here reckons to wit Of faith towards God of repentance of the last judgement and the like The solemnities and standing set dayes of baptizing he cals Baptismes in the plurall numer T otherwise there is but one baptisme in the Christian Church Ephes 4.5 C He joyns together with baptisme the imposition of hands because as there were two orders of catechised persons so there was a double ceremony For those that were forreigners without did not come to Baptisme before they had made a confession of their faith In them therefore catechising was wont to go before Baptisme But as for the children of beleevers because they were adopted from the wombe and by the right of the promise did appertain to the body of the Church they were baptized when Infants But being past infantie after they were instructed in the faith they offered themselves also to catechising which in these followed baptisme But another symbol or signe was applyed to these namely the imposition of hands A. M. of which there was a various use H. For by imposition of hands sometimes Christ sometimes the Apostles cured the sick Luk. 4.10 Mar. 16.18 Sometimes by imposition of hands the holy Ghost was conferred Act. 8.17 B. Also the hands of the Pastors were imposed upon those to whom and to whose faithfulnesse was committed the care of the Church or the Ministerie of the Word 1 Tim. 5.21 C Imposition of hands also was a certain solemn right or manner of praying of which the Apostle here speaks Hebr. 6.2 For by this symbol or signe of laying on of hands they would approve that profession of faith which young youth coming out of childhood did make Therefore this place alone abundantly testifies that the originall of imposition of hands came down from the Apostles Thus far these learned mens words reasons and Scripture-proof See more in Marlo on 1 Tim. 5.21 But we may not omit Mr. Cotton because he is in such credit with Mr. Tombes that he oft respectively quotes him as for himself in his Exercit. Mr. Cottons words on Hebr. 6.2 are these Way of Câ—u of N.E. Chap. 2. p. 27. of 1 edit There be that conceive that not improbable that in ancient time the children baptized in the Church were not received to the Lords Supper nor into the full fruition of all Church-liberties untill that they being grown up to yeers did publickly before the Church professe their faith and ratifie the covenant made for them in baptisme and so were confirmed as they call it in their Church estate which was not done without imposition of hands which some judicious Divines have conceived to be one cause why imposition of hands is reckoned as one of the six principles of the foundation of Christian Religion Hebr. 6.2 For it could not be a principle of the foundation of Christian faith it must therefore be a principle of the foundation of Church estate and order Now then if all the members of the Church were anciently confirmed in the ful fruition of the Church estate by imposition of hands then there were none of the members of the Church but had received imposition of hands much more the Ruling-elders who over and above the former were ordained to their publick office by imposition of hands and so having received imposition of hands themselves they might more freely lay hands on others So Mr. Cotton By all this it is clear that this imposition of hands by Christ on these little children in the texts afore quoted Matth. 17. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. according to the order set down by the Apostle Hebr. 6.2 did succeed and follow after their baptisme as supposed and granted to be baptised afore Obj. But say the Anabaptists it is in the text of such is the kingdom of heaven that is of men like infants Answ 1. We heard afore how Mr. Beza renders it of these and the like as relating to little children And his grave and learned pious judgement is as much to be credited as any Anabaptist in saying it is so or so 2 The Greek Authors do oft take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such for hoc this Bud. Const Plaet 3 If rendred such it s farre more naturall and not so farre fetcht to say of such little children of whom the story is then of such men But fourthly come to reason Christ Mar. 10.16 speaks of them whom he took up in his arms Pass Vessius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an arm Luk. 2.28 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ulna per epenthesin literarum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he took up not the men but the little children into his arms and laid his hands upon them and blessed them therefore of them he spake and shewed that heaven and the blessing of heaven belonged to them 5 That by discourse upon this v. 15. Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little childe shall not enter therein is also for us For the thing and the comparison must agree in the main scope but men must as little children receive the kingdom of God Therefore little children are in a
That it was a sleight conjecture if any infants were here that they were baptized If they were in this house as sure they were baptized as that they were the Goalers Sixthly to that ver 34. He rejoyced believing God â—â—â—h all his houshold which is one of Mr. Tombes his evincing arguments we say that the Greek must be accuratly heeded that we may speak just so as the Spirit spake For first that which divers render confidently with all his house is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Adverbe which signifies neither with nor his nor house but throughout or over all the house or family 2 That the pointing and placing of the words in the English doth not answer so well to the best Greek copies as it may For the Greek copies that Arius Pagn old lat which followeth an ancient Greek and therefore very considerable in its various readings of words and points saith learned Vsher put away the point at rejoyced so that no more can be evinced but that which is in the words which is this HE joyed with exultation or triumph over towards or throughout all his house or family HE having believed God So just according to the true idiom and proprietie and order of words in all Greek copies and according to the pointing in the best reason assenting for why did he exult or skip as in a dance of a Galliar as the Greek imports with triumph but because he beleeved He believing rejoyced triumphantly He rejoycing with triumph his families joyes were raised and lightned even children smile when the parents rejoyce Let them therefore look to this that mash the Text and un pronounce unperson and unnumber the words and dispoint the sentences as if it were to be read the Goaler rejoyced because all his family actually believed 7 That though Mr. T. answers to Crispus yet nothing to Gaius * Coâ—sult 3. ep of Joh. v. 1. And the new Notes on the Bible upon it for sure he had a family as well as Crispus nor to the family of Stephanas Is any Anabaptist sure there were no infants in these families Or that they were not baptized why then do they put it upon us as an infallibilitie that no infants were baptized in these families or any else For that of Crispus Mr. T. and I must leave it as we find it It appears not evidently in the Grammar of the words that Crispus was baptized CHAP. IX SOme other Arguments occur Exercitat which make a number without strength Why then doth Mr Tombes reckon upon ciphers Animadver 〈◊〉 Exercitat § 5. The Argument from generall promises for Infant-baptisme examined it is argued from generall promises made to the godly and their seed Exod. 20.6 Psal 112.2 c. Whence it is gathered That God makes a difference between the children of the godly and the wicked that he promiseth blessing to those not to these therefore the children of the godly are to be baptized not the other Answ The promises recited are first generall and indefinite secondly for the most part concerning corporall good things thirdly with the exception of free Election fourthly to be understood with the imployed condition of faith and repentance and so they serve not to this purpose We Reply to the first If generall and indefinite from God Animadver therefore not to be restrained by men from all those God mentions To the second If for the most-part concerning corporalls yet Mr T. dares not say altogether If some spirituals meant it is to the purpose secondly In Exod. 20.6 The judgements there on sinne must needs signsfie those that are spirituall therefore by the Antithesis spirituall mercies must be understood Thirdly In that 112. Psal v. 2. To expound that The seed of the upright shall be blessed that is with outward things were to say they should have no more then what multitudes if not most of wicked mens children have which in Gospell-English were to say they are cursed Their table may be made a snare Psal 69.22 And these are the ungodly that prosper in the world Psal 73.12 To the third That the promises to men of ripe years also are with the exception of Free Election So Rom. 9.18 Speaking of them that stood in opposition over against rebellious Pharaoh To the fourth we say first That promises must be considerable in the eyes of men so as to come waite under the pressing them or else they will not be comfortable meanes to work actuall faith and repentance in them Secondly That Mr T. cannot say that Infants are uncapable of faith For if Iohn Baptist whiles a child was full of the holy Ghost sure he had that fruit of it faith in the habit And those little ones Ghrist blessed could not be blessed without union with Christ which is by the spirit of faith Secondly Exercistat § 9. The Argument from Isa 49.22 for Infant-baptisme examined from Isai 49.22 it is foretold that Gentiles should therefore the Prophet foresaw in Spirit the baptisme of the little ones of the Gentiles Answ First little ones might be brought for other ends then baptisme as Mat. 19.15 Secondly I will use the words of Francis Iunius in his Annotations on the place All these things are said Allegorically of the spirituall amplification of the Kingdome of Christ as the Prophets are wont they are fulfilled in the perswasions in which the Gentiles exhorted their children to imbrace Christ We Reply Animadver To the first That Infants in that place Mat. 19.15 were brought for an higher thing then Baptisme as we shewed and Mr T. confessed afore on that Text therefore might be brought to a lower viz. Baptisme Secondly sure they should bring their children to the congregations of the Churches to which Kings and Princes shall submit spiritually as Constantine c. did and this the Gentile parents should do for their children in bringing them upon the lifting up of Gods hand and Standard that is the preaching of the Gospell as Mr T. his Iunius note son that place And therefore must bring their children whom they were fain to carry in their Armes and on their shoulders for somewhat these children might have from the Gospell or else as good they had been left at home in the cradle or bed And there is no former or lower Ordinance for children then the first Seal as in the Old Testament so in the New To the second The words of Iunius We Reply first So the Gentiles might exhort their children but it must be long after they ceased to carry them in their armes and on their shoulders when they could more then go of themselvs 2. Take Calvins words into the ballance with Iunius The Prophet pronounceth That the children of the Gentiles should be given to the Church But how if not in and by the first Ordinance if not the least Baptisme Exercitat § 20. The Argument from 1 Cor. 10.2 â—isme examined Thirdly from 1 Cor.
Pet. 2.9 Examined which things are said of the Israelites Exod. 19. 〈◊〉 6. Therefore beleevers of the Nations obtain the same birth priviledges which the Israelites had and therefore the children are within the Covenant and to be baptized as the children of the Israelites were to be circumcised Mr T. his Answer is first If this Argument proceed it will follow that there is some Nationall Church among the Gentiles as of old among the Jews which is not to be granted which I would have understood in this sence There is now no such Nationall-Church as amongst the Israeliets so as that a person should be accounted a member of a Church in that he is an Englishman Sco◠Dutchman c. In this speech JOPPOSE NOT THEM WHICH AFFIRME Note THE OUTWARD GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO NATIONALL SYNODS Secondly Exod. 19.5 6. God speakes not of a priviledge flowing from birth but Obedience Thirdly The Epistle was written to the dispersed Jews and therefore the Argument lies lyable to exception when it is drawn from that which is said of the Jewes as if it were said of the Gentiles Fourthly The sence is ye which beleeve ver 7. whom God hath called out of darknesse are a holy Nation whether Iews or Gentiles by spirituall regeneration as beleevers are called a family or kinred Ephess 3.15 The houshold of faith Gal. 6.10 The house of God 1 Tim. 3.15 A people 1 Pet. 2.10 Wherefore in this family kinred house people are onely beleevers whom not carnall birth but spirituall causeth to be reckoned in that number We Reply Animadver to Mr T. his first particular thus The Argument in my eye doth not proceed to suppose some Nationall Church among the Gentiles For it doth not say The Nations of beleevers but The Beleevers of Nations obtaine the same birth priviledges Besides it recites a text written to the Iewes who were scattered from being a formall Nation throughout Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia Chap. 1. v. 1. And when they were a formall Nation a person was not counted a member of that Church quatenus ipsum precisely as he was a Iew but as he was circumcised or the Infant of one circumcised and so to be circumcised also A Iew was cut off if not circumcised according to the institution to Abrabraham Gen. 17. And a Gentile though a Gentile was a member of that Church if circumcised Ibid. Gen. 17. Just as an Englishman as an Englishman was not reckoned a member of the Church or Churches in England if unfit to be Baptized but kept out or a damnable Heretick after Baptisme but was cast out or if one be not the Infant of one baptized Though Mr Tombes seemes to oppose Nationall Churches yet he sets them up thus far wherein those of his judgement in the Question in hand I mean the ANABAPTISTS WILL NOT APPROVE Mr TOMBES That the outward government of the Church should be SVBIECT to NATIONALL SYNODS Nor will Mr Tombes please himself with the direct inference that will follow from his expresse words which inference is this That if a Nationall Synod in England shall determine that Infants of Beleevers shall be baptized whiles Infants Mr. T. must SVBIECT to it and lay down all his Exercitat Examination and Appendix against the baptizing of beleevers Infants as labour in vaine cancelled writings an old Almanack For Mr Tombes hath not in a matter of so great consequence reserved to himself by any expresse here so much as this exception That he will not SVBMIT in case they determine contrary to the Scriptures in his judgement but that he will have his liberty to stand out against the determination If any can at the first sight of this suddenly divine and Edict by Proclamation that this exception was supposed it may be as suddenly and rationally argued back again that this would have been sooner understood of the vulgar and readier been beleeved of the wiser if it had been here expressed But if they will have it supposed then the Question will be first Whether Mr T. according to his design hath prevented all offence to any of whom he would be rightly understood touching Nationall Synods Secondly What greater thing hath he said than divers others with whom yet he doth not for ought I know close in point of Church-Government To Mr T. his second reply touching Exod. 19.6 That the place being spoken to the parents suppose upon condition of obedience doth no way infringe that the children of those obedient parents should be counted of that holy Nation that is among the reputed holy of that Nation witnesse their Circumcision and their no-capacity of disobedience To the third particular we reply That this Epistle being written to the dispersed Jews leanes pronly for application to the Gentile-beleevers that though they are as a dispersed people among the unchristian Christian called-nations yet their Infants with them are to be accounted indefinitely holy as the children of circumcised Jews were counted holy To Mr T. his fourth particular we reply That there is nothing in it that doth evince that the children of the regenerate should not be accounted federally among the beleeving Gentiles of the more more glorious New Testament as among the Jews under the shadowed Old Testament Sixthly it will be answered saith M. T. that the Church of God Exercitat failes not § 13. The Argument from the Churches sayling if Infant-baptsme be not lawfull Examined But we must say the Church of God hath failed if Baptisme of Infants be not lawfull Ergo. Mr T. Answ 1. The Church of God may consist without baptisme as in the crucified converted thief c. Secondly neither perhaps is it necessary to be said that the baptisme of Infants because not lawfull is therefore null Thirdly there was in the Church Baptisme of persons grown in all ages Ludov. Vives in his Comment upon Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 1. cap. 27. hath these words No man of old was brought unto the place of holy baptisme unlesse he were of grown age already and when the same person knew what that mysticall water meant and desired to be washed in it and that more then once an image of which thing we see yet in our baptisme of Infants for as yet the Infant though born the same day or the day before is asked whether he would be baptized and that thries for whom the sureties answer that he would I beare in some Cities in Italy that the old custome for a great part is yet preserved We reply To the first particular First doth one converted thees continue the church Animadver 2 Or if an accident that many by divine providentiall necessity are bolted and debarred from an ordinance for a certain time doth not interrupt the Churches succession when God by his prerogative will continue it Can at another time wilfull neglect of an Ordinance in a right manner yea the applying of it grossely to the
19.4.8 argues from the institution of marriage against Divorce for a light cause and polygamie because it is said two not more shall be one flesh So in like manner it may be here argued Christ said Baptizing them and not others therefore these and not others are to be baptized We answer The cases of the Lords Supper Animadvers and marriage were far different from this of Baptisme 1. That as there were clear precedent fore-going institutions of marriage and the Lords Supper So to those institutions the words of Christ and Paul expresly relate 2. That therefore those repetitions Mr. T. quotes were not the first institutions of those two but an application of the first institutions unto exact practise accordingly to them 3. That the occasion of this repetition of the institution of those two were grosse abuses in both exprest by the Apostle and Christ for which there was no fair pretence but an apparent offending against the first institution As that a man should for every light cause put away his wife which was not onely against the first institution Gen. 2.24 Matth. 5 32.-19.4 5 8. but against Moses his dispensation Deut. 24.1 which was not to put her away unlesse he found some uncleannesse that hindred cohabitation according to the intent of marriage Matth. 19.8 So likewise these were grosse abuses first that men at the communion should not tarry one for another but every faction they of Paul by themselves they of Peter or Cephas by themselves and first come first served as we say should partake of the Lords Supper Secondly that after their holy Supper some that were rich made such large feasts of charitie which Christ instituted not of the collections that they were drunk whiles the poorer coming after were hunger-bit had nothing lest for them Now for the businesse of Baptisme in this 28. of Matt. it is quite otherwise in all the said three particulars For as for the first particular either as we say in circumcision was a full and sufficient foregoing institution of the administration of Baptisme and then Christ needed not say more here but go teach and baptise as referring us to the institution of the first seal circumcision in the old Testament Where after believing Abraham was taught Gen. 12. Gen. 15. and after circumcised Gen. 17. he accordingly circumcised his children and therefore so it should be in the New Testament The parents being taught and baptized their children were to be baptized also Or else as the Anabaptists say there was no preceding or fore-going institution of baptisme before Christs time and that Baptisme differs much from Circumcision But if this be true how doth this place of Matth. 28.19 agree with those quoted places of marriage and the Lords Suppers there being nothing fore-going this as there is afore them to make us punctually understand the meaning of it at least in every main particular especially in matters of main difference from the administration of the first seal of the old Testament And therefore To the second particular we say that if this 28. of Matth. be the institution of baptisme First as it doth not agree with the places of marriage and the Lords Supper to be an application of a former institution of Baptisme to an exact practise so our faithfull Christ must needs have spoken plainer and fuller in an institution to have prevented so grosse an abuse if it had been abuse that men should apply this Sacrament to any infants if to them it should not belong For how should it be prevented but from the institution at least And how from the institution if Christ will not there speak it So for the third and last particular as Baptisme of believers infants hath you will yeeld at least a fair religious pretence for it out of Gen. 17. so the Lord Christ or John Baptist or the Apostles do not in the least intimate any where that the baptizing of beleevers children was an abuse as is intimated about that of marriage and the Lords Supper and therefore we cannot attend to any such intention of Christ in the least in this of Matth. 28. to prevent the baptisme of believers infants Bat Mr. T. in his Argument afore out of Matth. 28. objecteth that if any gather thence that Infants are to be baptized because Christ commands all Nations to be baptized that first he is faultie in casting away that restriction that Christ hath put Secondly in making the priviledge of believers and their children common to all Infidels and their children We answer to the first That first that is the question whether Christ hath here put a restriction against believers children Secondly that we extend not this place further then to the children of taught-or-made disciples understanding it to refer to Gen. 17. where instructed Abraham was to circumcise his children as we said afore Yet it is said I will make thee a Father of many Nations and in thy seed all the Nations shall be blessed So here though it be said Go teach and baptize all Nations yet we extend it not beyond the children of parents taught and baptized But saith Mr. T. However assertors of baptisme of Infants crack of a priviledge of believers and their off-spring yet by their sayings and doings touching baptizing all Infants they go far from Christs institution and their own principles at this day upon which they are now busie to establish Infant-Baptisme For their doings first Mr. T. urgeth their baptizing all Infants offered to them For their sayings he urgeth Augustine and his quotation out of Cyprian Also Mr. S. Rutherford Scot and Mr. Rathband Answ As we did not appoint Cyprian August John Gerard Mr. Rutherford or Mr. Rathband to speak for us all So nor do they undertake it We know as these men have and do confesse they are men humanum est errare man may mistake Mr. T. assumes not to himself infallibilitie If August and Cyprian c. did erre on the right hand in saying all Infants may be baptized yet this doth not inferre that that is no errour in others that say no Infants are to be baptized which erres on the left hand And though we might excuse Cyprian and Augustine c. thus farre and yet be excused of candid men for so doing that there is not no difference between saying Grace is not to be denied to any man and saying All Infants whatsoever are to be baptized let them that can consult the places of Cyprian and Augustine yet we say rather that the Fathers had their severell naevos their blemishes in divers things as Danaeus on Augustine and Tossanus upon all the Fathers note them Augustine was so sensible of this that he wrote his Confessions to acknowledge the errours of his life and his Retractations of his errors in opinion Who knows but that Mr. Tombes and that other H.D. that is sharp with Mr. Marshall for stating the question of baptizing believers children his practise and others
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
are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their Baptisme by that faith of those that bring them to Baptisme So Mr. T. â—is translat and then Mr. T. makes these observations upon it 1 That In those times they did not baptize Infants upon Mr. Marshals ground namely upon the Covenant of Grace made to them and their Infants 2 But they baptized them because they thought the not-baptized should not obtein good things at the resurrection but the baptized should 3 That those baptized Infants obteined those good things by reason of the faith of the bringers what ever the parents were 4 That therefore they baptized the children of unbeleevers as well as of beleevers if they were brought Mr. T. hoping by this translation and these Notes to bring the Author and his words into disgrace as he himself hints it to us But we answer in generall that Mr. T. hath likewise quoted Authors and among them even his much esteemed Ludovicus Vives that have had their harsh expressions and worse as before we have noted 2. The intent and manner of quoting the Quest. to the orthodox was onely to testifie that the baptisme of Infants was a known custome in those times In particular we answer first to his first observation that the said 56. Question was not urged by my self or Mr. T. to prove baptisme of Infants upon the ground of the Covenant But the question being whether in point of Fact the Churches used anciently to baptize Infants to that the quotation of those Questions named Justin Martyrs was alledged and to that it serveth fitly and fully For he was a very ancient Author in the judgement of divers learned men Sylburgius thinks that he was a Justin that might write about the time of Theodoret. But Photius thinks that it might be Iustin Martyr interlined by some other Iustin or other after as Ruffinus dealt by Origen as Mr. T. confesseth To Mr. T. second observation we answer That as we that are believers as it is in the Answer to that 56. Question cannot applaud nor comfort our selves in a willing neglect of baptizing our children according to the Gospel institution as we now stand to maintain so doubtlesse we are to expect good things on Gods part to our children according to the intent of Baptisme We find it so on earth in their comfortable application of baptisme at ripe yeers and why not then to beleeve the fruit of it in heaven if they dye in childhood Why may not Baptisme as well comfort the supposed Iustin Martyr and us as Circumcision did the Patriarks concerning their childrens receiving the first seal This expression in this 56. Question and Answer is esteemed by Grotius on Matth. 19.14 whom Mr. T. so oft quotes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To his third observation we answer That there is no such clause or intimation in the said place of the 56. Quest. ad orthodox as Mr. T. here inserts namely what ever the parents be The contrary is more probable the Author calling the bringers of the Infants beleevers And who so likely to bring the children as the parents And therefore the parents here most probably are those believers And whereas Mr. T. renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy worthy of good things he might by warrant from the Gospel * As Matth. 10.11 enquire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is fit or meet that is to receive you as it is expounded in v. 14. have rendred it by a more orthodox and fit terme viz. meet or fit And lastly it being more probable then any thing Mr. T. can bring to the contrary that the children were brought to baptisme by their beleeving parents and so made meet for good things as the fruit of it let the Reader judge whether all this doth not imply that respect here might be had to the Covenant of grace as the ground of baptizing children which Mr. T. but now so peremptorily denyed as if it were infallibly contrary to the Text of the Author To his fourth observation we need say no more but that Mr. T. speaks it without all warrant or such probability from the text of the Author as there is in it to the contrary Now let the world judge whether the words of the Author considering his time are so vain or so impertinent as Mr. T. would meke them had they been alledged in full and beyond that the quotation extended to Thus for Justin Martyr Next we come to Irenaeus IRENAEVS who lived in the same century namely in the next age to the Apostles and not at the last end of that age neither For Bucholcerus one of the most approved Chronologers by Vsher puts him in the yeer after Christ 178. And Helvicus puts him higher namely in the yeer Testis D. H. secum enutritus 170. And both of them put him down as Bishop at that time of Lyons saith Bucholcerus and therefore was famous no doubt divers yeers afore and an observer of the customes of the Churches Having this advantage for that purpose that he was the Scholar of Polycarp as Polycarp was Scholar or disciple to some of the Apostles as divers Chronologers tell us That which Irenaeus hath to our purpose in the point in hand is in his 2 Book 39. Chap. about the middle His words are these Magister ergo existens c. that is Therefore being a teaching Master he had also the age of such a Master not refusing or going beyond a man nor dissolving the law of humane kind in himself but sanctifying every age by that similitude that was in him to it For he came to save all men by himself All I say who by him are BORN-AGAIN unto or into God INFANTS and LITTLE-ONES boyes and young men and elder men Therefore he went through every age and was made an Infant to Infants sanctifying Infants Among little ones a little one sanctifying them that have this age being also made an example to them of pietie and justice or righteousnesse and subjection Among young men being made a young man and sanctifying them to the Lord so also an elder to the elder that he might be a perfect teaching master not onely according to the exposition of truth but also according to age sanctifying the elder being made also an example to them And then he went also unto death that he might be the first-born from the dead holding the primacy in all things c. So Irenaeus Whom we have translated above and beneath the place we are to use that there might be the lesse exception by any that they could not see the coherence and scope of the place The words we stand upon in which Irenaeus intimates the baptisme of Infants in that his time next after the Apostles are All I say who by him are BORN AGAIN unto or into God or according to God INFANTS and LITTLE ONES c. The word Renascuntur that is regenerated or new-born or born again
Iewish passeover 1 Cor. 5. and of the Iewish Manna and water out of the rock 1 Cor. 10.1 c is therefore all Baptism and is therefore the Lords Supper deservedly doubtfull whether they may be used Yea why doth Mr T. without any limitation call circumcision Iewish as if it had been meerly so when the Apostle calls it Rom. 4.11 The signes and seal of the righteousnesse of faith Note It had been too much for Mr T. to have called it meer Old Testament or ceremonious circumcision seeing it is the first seal of the covenant with Abraham which was Gospell being the main hinge upon which the New Testament moves in the main point of salvation by faith in Christ Act. 2. Rom. 4. Gal. 3. where the Apostles in sending us to Christ by faith urges Gods Covenant with Abraham Circumcision therefore annexed to the covenant must be in diverse respects of the same nature as under the notion of the first seal in regard of the spirituall signification inward sanctification and too in respect of application to teach that still the first Seal as now baptism is to be applyed as to the beleeving parents so to their Infant seed unlesse Mr T. could have all this while shewd us an exception And what if according to Mr T. his third particular of Not universall practise Moses neglected the circumcision of his child at the due time and circumcision was not exercised upon the Jews born in the wildernesse for 40 years and many parts of worship could not be used in the times of the Churches persecution but Churches and their worship were hid in corners as Revel 12. And we have not records to tell us what they did for many hundred of yeeres but intimations how they were abridged of their liberties Now doth this make any of these things doubtfull See Vossius Thes Theolet Histor De Paedobapt And our quotation after Ambros following No more doth the want of universall practise detract from the authority of administring baptism to beleevers Infants especially seeing the Pelagian faction and other Heresies before that so ancient and so over spreading the Christian world being also opposite to the baptism of Infants might be a great cause that it was not universally practized And it is no handsome Argument in the mouth of an Anabaptist to urge the Non-universall practise of Infant Baptism when many of their fellows have been the cause of it Nor is it enough to wave that we have said to these two particulars viz. the second and third by telling us there was an institution of Circumcision in scripture an institution of Baptisme of men and of the Lords Supper in the Scripture for so we have proved there is of Infant Baptisme and we may as well assert this in this our Answer as for the Anabaptists to begge the Question in the objection as if Infant-baptisme were not instituted in Scripture For the fourth particular with its great caetera namely That together with the baptisme of Infants some errour and many humane traditions have gone along in the company as giving Infants the Lords Supper c. It needs no long nor carefull answer For first we know that all the Ordinances of Christ have been for many hundreds of years for the generall daubed with many traditions and darkned with many errours by the Papists doctrines mixt with Legends Note Baptisme be-spitled greased with oyl brined with salt the wine of the Lords Supper mixt with water c. yet this doth not infer that therefore the Ordinances themselves are doubtfull 2. That though you Mr T. Vltrò nos provocasti have voluntarily provoked us here to rip up all the abhominable opinions and dangerous errours and practises that have in all ages accompanied the opinion of Anabaptisme and antipaedobaptisme out of Mr Bullinger Sleidens Commentaries in his 5. and 10. book Lambertus Hortensius of the Anabaptiss of the Low Countries Iohn Gastius of the Anabaptists of Zuitzerland Melancthon Ch. de Nielles Pontanus Osiander c. * All which will more then furnish the Reader with a full answer to the 2 part of Mr T. his EXAMEN the title or sum whereof is set down by Mr T. That Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church or Common-wealth which Authors aforesaid have too many sad instances of both we forbear to name them as having no delight in Catalogues of sins Yet if we should do so you would not take that for a proof of the doubtfulnesse of Anabaptisme or Antipaedobaptisme you would say we did rather endeavour to disgrace it then to confute it as it is your complaint against Mr M. in your first Section of the second part of your EXAMEN why then do you here labour to dazle the eyes of men against the Lawfulnesse of baptizing beleevers children with an aspersion that some odde opinions and traditions have attended it 2. To Mr T. his minor we answer according to the particulars he recites But in some ages saith he after the first from the Apostles the tenet and practise of Infant-Baptisme was in use first as a tradition not written But why doth Mr T. we wonder speak of some ages after the first 100 years from the Apostles For unlesse he could proove Infant-baptisme to be an unwritten tradition in the first age next after the Apostles all is to no purpose If it were not an unwritten tradition in that age it is not an unwritten one though all the ages following to the worlds end say so and swear it Nor do the words was in use help him For if it be not proved it was an unwritten tradition in the first age after the Apostles though it was not then in use this is nothing to make it then an unwritten tradition Now to the first particular wherein Mr T. saith Infant-Baptism was in use as an unwritten tradition in some ages after the first from the Apostles witnesse Origen First we will bring our proofes of antiquity to the contrary and then secondly answer to Mr T. his quotation of Origen 1 For proof out of Antiquity that Infant-Baptisme was not in use after the first age from the Apostles upon meer unwritten tradition we will take our Authours according to order of time 1 ORIGEN ORIGEN Flourished about the very beginning of the second Century or age after the first from the Apostles times For he was borne * So Butholcer out of Hieron in the first Age or 100 years after that of the Apostles about the yeare of Christ 186. And he being the Disciple of Clement in the 18 year of his age and about the year after Christ 204. opens his schoole ** Helvic ou◠of Euseb Therefore he could not be ignorant of the customes of the Apostles about Infant-Baptisme c. First his words in his fifth booke upon the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans are The Church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to give Baptisme also to
of 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
premisses who before expresly named baptisme and ioyns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together Consecration or sanctification Thus Greg. Naz. on whose words learned Vossius speaks my sence Non igitur c. Therefore saith Vossius Nazianzen doth not deny the baptisme of little children whom if there be any danger of death he commands also to be baptized but onely judgeth that otherwise it may not unprofitably be deferred to the third or fourth yeer Which is onely one Doctors opinion and not the common judgement of the ancient Church Thus Vossius Take we in also the Note of Vincent Lirinens cap. 39. Quicquid unus vel alter Patrum quamâ—is ille sanctus c. that is Whatsoever one or other of the Fathers albeit he be holy and learned c. shall think besides or contrary to all the rest let that go among his own proper hidden and private opiniol's or conceits as different and severed from the Authoritie of that common judgement c. And lastly give us leave to adde our observation 1 That according to the designe in hand Nazianzen holds the baptisme of little children that have not yet the use of reason not as an unwritten tradition but according to his judgement as well as others rightly grounded on the Scriptures in the institution and administration of circumcision and that of the sprinkling of the Paschal blood on the doore-posts Exod. 12. Had baptisme of Infants been held in his time onely as a Tradition he had not argued it from Scripture 2 That for deferring of baptisme of some till three yeers old or lesse as he saith what did this conduce more to that which some of the Anabaptists require at Baptisme as manifestations of true grace then to baptize them at eight or ten dayes old upon Gods Covenant with the believing parent Here to clear things as we go we must answer some objections made against what we alledge out of Nazianzen First Mr. D. in his Antichrist unmasked Objections of H. D. against Nazianzen cleared 1. Obj. Nazianzen saith he restrains baptisme of Infants to danger but there is no danger if they be not baptized Ergo Nazianzens mind is not that Infants should be baptized Answ This Argument playes with an equivocation of the word danger H. D. means there is no spirituall danger if an Infant dies before it be baptized But Nazianzen means danger of bodily death and therefore gives it as a precept or command that in case there be danger that the Infant may dye before it be sealed with baptisme let it be baptized according to the figure thereof circumcision c. See before Obj. 2. Nazianzen saith H. D. was not baptized till he was 30. yeers old as it is said In his life Answ If that in Nazianzens life say this truly yet this might be by reason of the persecutions of those times or indisposition of his parents or other pressing necessities and therefore doth infer no more then that circumcision ought not after the Israelites came into Canaan to be administred till men were fourty yeers old because so long it was deferred in the wildernesse Christ himself was not baptized till thirty yeers old yet the Anabaptists will not make a rule of this that onely those of just that age must be baptized Sure enough if Nazianzen his baptisme was deferred past childhood it was not intended by him for a regulating example but oft in that Oration fore-quoted in severall places exhorts to hasten Baptisme * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Hast an Infant lest improbity snatch away the opportunity let him be sanctified from his infancie meaning baptisme having spoken in the very next preceding words against delay of bapâ—isme Naz. Orat. â—0 p. 648. See also p. 646 Think all time to be certain determined for baptisme and not to defer it after the example of Christ not baptized till thirtie yeers old * Ibid. p. 658. Edit Paris Graec. Lat. And you heard in the place quoted that he mentions deferring in any case but till 3 or 4 yeers old or lesse sometimes which is all one in effect with baptizing beleevers Infants at three moneths or three weeks unlesse the mathematicall consideration of words spoken without knowledge as Persius his Parrat spake Greek * One of the Anabaptists in a book called The character of the Beast saith If one confesse his sins though there be no signe of grace he ought to be baptized prevails with some Secondly Mr. Tombes objects in his EXAMEN against Nazianzen EXAMEN Sect. 6. 1. He objects with an interrogation but doth Greg. Nazianzen saith Mr. T. seem onely to restrain it to the case of necessitie The words saith he are plain that Nazianzen gives the reason why Infants in danger of death should be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might not misse of the common grace But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gives his opinion of others that they should stay longer that they might be instructed and so their minds and bodies might be sanctified Thus Mr. T. Animadvers We answer First if Greg. Nazianzen doth give reason why Infants should be baptized in case they are not likely to live to be of riper yeers it is so much the better for us Secondly he doth give another reason beside that of partaking of common grace namely 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it is better they should be sanctified without a feeling of it then to depart without the seal So he thinks they are sanctified too in infancie as well as at riper yeers 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A reason also of this to us is circumsion that was wont to be done on the eight day c. Thirdly we answer that all three Reasons stand in force as well for all believers Infants God putting them under the promise Gen. 17. as for those Infants that are in danger of death Fourthly that Nazianzen urgeth divers divine Reasons to him evincing for the baptisme of Infants not in danger of death but for the delaying of others not in danger of death he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I give my opinion He cals it his opinion And what is it that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such children should stay till three or foure yeers old more or lesse And what is to be expected from children of that age more then from Infants towards baptisme For Nazianzen himself confesseth that though they may then hear and answer some spirituall things yet they understand imperfectly But doth Nazianzen give us there any Scripture for this differing None Doth he give any Reason Even in effect the same as for baptizing of Infants in danger of death to wit that they may be sanctified in mind and body Secondly EXAMEN Sect. 6. Mr. T. objects upon our alledging Nazianzen against all the Greek Fathers in effect that we have alledged and the custome of the Greek Churches touching Infant-baptisme first thus It is wonder to me saith Mr.
by them in many Authors mentioned this is to mee and it seemed to Hugo Grotius Annot in Matth. 19.14 no small evidence that Baptisme of Infants many hundred yeares was not ordinary in the Greek Church Grotius adds that the Canon of the Synod of Neo-Caesarea in the yeare 313. determines that a woman with child might be baptized because the Baptisme reached not to the fruit of her womb because in the confession made in Baptisme each ones free choyce is shewed We answer First that this seemes no otherwise to mee but as the confessions of sinne Animadvers and profession of Faith in the New Testament by them that at the first Institution of Baptisme were baptized at ripe yeeres doth not imply but that Baptisme descended to their children whiles children yea so much the rather because the Parents were baptized the Promise then being actually instated on them Acts 2. the Promise to you and to your children even just so may we say of those questions put to the baptized and answered by them in the Greek Church For though being Gentiles the Parents at first were to make confession as a token of their conversion from Hethenisme before their Baptisme yet this doth not in the least argue that their children must be able to make confession before they were baptized No more then the Circumcision of Abraham and the strangers are bought with money when they were believers of riper yeeres did inferre that all Christs children from age to age should not be circumcised till they were so too 2. Touching Grotius we answer foure things 1. That he in discussing the point on Matth. 19.14 touching Infant-baptisme alleadgeth diverse things to shew that some in the Greek Church in severall ages did not baptize their Infants but hath no such passage as that Infant-baptisme was not ordinary in the Greek Church 2. In all he alleadgeth touching this he saith not to the contraty but that the Non-baptizing of some Infants might bee because their Greek Parents were not converted from Gentilisme 3. For that Neocaesarian Synod * Of which there are many Editions varying one from another the cause and intent of it in part at least might bee as was intimated afore out of Clem. Alexand. a Greek who flourished long before the Neocaesarian Synod and therefore likely this Synod would have respect to him ** And to Tertullian of the same time with CLEM. who hath to the same effect as CLEM. Tertulli Lib. de Anima chap. 39. 40. of which afore chap. 13. of Animad vid. in marg TERTVL to wit that though by the Baptismall washing of the Parent by vertue of the Promise I am the God of thee and thy seed and the Promise is to you and to your children the seed of that Parent was accounted holy yet so as not to anticipate and prevent the baptizing of that seed when it was borne 4. Grotius himselfe intimatedly confesseth that Interpreters doe take the words of that Synod otherwise then to intend against Infant-Baptisme 5. For Grotius his owne opinion it is cleere and full for Infant-baptisme upon that 19. of Matth. ver 14. who alleadgeth and asserts these particulars 1. That it was gratefull to Christ that little Children should be brought to him as the designed ones of holinesse and so of salvation according to Tertullians expression 2. That according to Irenaeus Christ passed through every age hee became an Infant to sanctifie Infants a little childe to sanctifie them of that age c. 3. That upon this text of Christ receiving little ones c. among other grounds doth saith Grotius leane the practice of baptizing little one and Infants 4. That in Augustines time saith he it was a common neceived practice to baptize Infants as is cleere by this that when the Pelagians holding some how against Infant-Baptisme were pressed with this Argument of the practice of all Churches in baptizing Infants they durst not deny it to be true 5. That by Hieroms and Augustines quotation of Cyprians Epistle to Fidus it is cleere saith Grotius that it was not doubted in Cyprians time whether Infants might be baptized but onely some stuck at this whether they might bee baptized afore they were eight dayes old And it was determined in a Councel then whereof Cyprian was one that Baptisme should not bee denyed to Infants newly borne if they were offered thereunto 6. Grotius saith that in an ancient book entituled the Constitutions of Clement it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Baptize your Infants also then trayne them up in the instruction and nurture of the Lord. 7. Grotius having quoted somethings out of that Synod of Balsamo and Zonanas Walafridus Strabo c. that in many ages all Infants had not been baptized he concludes but saith he as those things hold forth a liberty antiquity and difference of custome so they bring nothing to prove why Infant-baptisme should be rejected when their Parents c. offer them to be consecrated with the prayers of the Saints and vowes of pious education of them which among other things is not unfitly signified in Baptisme Neither ought that to bee any hindrance to the Baptisme of Infants that all things which in like manner are signified by Baptisme cannot agree properly to that age For Repentance also which we know is signified in Baptisme and indeed had a greater place in them that having long lived a most impure life testified their purpose of changeing their whole conversation then in others had no place at all in Christ when John baptized him who as Tertullian saith was not baptized as any debtor to repentance 8. Grotius quotes the Author of the Qu. ad Orthodox whom Mr. T. hath so be-bastarded afore I say Grotius quotes him as a worthy Author citing these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Infants are counted meet for good things by Baptisme by meanes of the Faith of them that brought them 9. In that Christ saith of Infants Of such is the kingdom of God that Christ did in that say thus much saith Grotius by so much the lesse is that age to be despised as prophane by how much men of ripe yeers that yeeld themselves up to my government must become children again Lastly to Mr. T. his objecting that Constantine the great and Greg. Nazianzen were not baptized til they were of age I answer 1. That Mr. T. hath ill urged Constantine a Latin for an instance that baptisme of Infants was not ordinary in the Greek Church 2. To Constantines and Greg. Nazianzens baptisme we have answered afore The next testimonie is of Ambrose AMBROSE who flourished about the yeer 381 * Helvic He in his 2. book of Abraham Chap. 11. saith Neither the old Proselyte nor the Infant Native is excepted because every age is obnoxious to sin and therefore every age is meet for the Sacrament For unlesse one be born again of water and the holy Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom
to be baptized who is not washed in the Baptisme wherewith sinnes are washed away Thus was the Tenet of De Bruis as it is in Mr T. his Cluniacensis Whence observe 1. That De Bruis did hold That no Infants while Infants can have any faith Contrary to that That Iohn the Baptist was filled with the holy Ghost from his mothers womb which filling or in being in a sanctifying manner is by the fruits of the Spirit Love joy faith Gal. 5. As it is said Rom. 5. The love of God that is as part of the meaning the apprehension of the love of God is shed into our hearts BY HIS SPIRIT The little children Mar. 10. had grace because Christ confirmes their grace And all graces go together 2. De Bruis did hold That all whether beleevers Infants or beleevers of ripe yeares dying unbaptized are damned And so condemnes many of the Martyrs to hell 3. By this opinion of De Bruis he falsifies the Text he quotes For though it be sayd in the affirmative joyntly He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved yet it is not said joyntly in the negative that unlesse One de both beleeve and also be Baptized he shall be damned but onely singlely he that beleeveth not shall be damned 4. De Bruis holds that God the principall agent cannot work or doth not work he wants power or will to worke the work of mans Salvation without the Instrument Baptisme So that God is stript of his Prerogative and tyed to meanes 5. That if a man be baptized at ripe years and that by De Bruis or his companion Heinricus they conceiving him to be a beleever yet if it prove after he was not a beleever at that baptisme he is not to be said to have been baptized So that if after indeed that he beleeves he be baptized that is no re-baptizing because his former baptism was nothing By this the Intelligent Reader may see 1. That ill might Mr T. alleadge De Bruis for the Antipaedobaptisme he contends for 2. That well might De Bruis refuse not onely the Fathers but all Orthodox Writers for this is such an Opinion as he knew he must stand alone without company And therefore his best course was to professe it as a singularity 2. M. T. tells us that Cluniacensis saith of De Bruis that he did reject the authority of the Latin Doctors being himselfe a Latine ignorant of the Greek To this I Answer That I have run over with mine eye De Bruis his proposition of Antipaedobaptisme and Cluniacensis his answer and proof but finde not that sentence nor sence that De Bruis was a Latin ignorant of the Greek This I finde that Cluniacensis confesseth of himselfe he was a Latine and not skilled in Greek as we shall shew by and by See ☞ in the Margin a little after in our translation of Cluniacensis and at our third particular in our answer to Mr T. his fourth particular viz. his Observation 3. Mr T. saith that Cluniacensis saying of De Bruis that he did run to the Scriptures Cluniacensis alleadgeth against De Bruis the examples in the New Testament of Christs curing of persons at the request of others to prove Infant baptisme by To this we Answer that the naked truth is this 1. That one of Cluniacensis his businesses was to prove That children were counted neerer to Salvation by the faith of the Parents and so a fortiori urgeth as from the non parentall-kin to the beleeving Parent from the curing of the body to the curing of the soul that Christ cured the bodies of some upon the faith of them that were no Parents that brought them 2. Another of Cluniacensis his businesses was to prove That infants might be saved while Infants and accordingly alleadgeth 1. That as in the first Adam children whiles children dyed spiritually so children whiles childrend might be made alive spiritually in the second Adam Christ 3. That there was not an absolute necessity of a joynt concurrence of baptisme with faith in all that should be saved or else no Salvation For if Cluniacensis had not spoken to this he had for saken the termes and state of the question And therefore urgeth some of the Martyrs and that saying of Christ He that confesseth me before men him will I confesse before my Father in heaven and many other things that some are saved without baptisme that Martyrdome goes for baptisme His fourth businesse was to prove that children might be baptized and for that urgeth Mat. 19. Mar. 10. Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not c. 4. Mr T. makes an observation upon the former passages as he himselfe hath represented them From these passages faith Mr T. I gather that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for Paedobaptisme the authority of Augustine and the Latine Doctors so Peter de Bruis and Heinricus appealed to the Scriptures and the Greek Church We answer Here Mr T. makes a great treble intimation 1. That Cluniacensis urged Latin Doctors 2. That therefore Augustines Authority was then in the great esteem to carry the question of Infant Baptism 3. That De Bruis did appeal to the Greek Church as if that were for him against Infant Baptisme But I can finde neither of these in Cluniacensis This onely I finde which I suppose is that Mr T. alludes to that Cluniacensis speaks to De Bruis and Heinricus the Apostle as he is called and De Bruis too thus Ad Vestram c. * Ad vestram brutamhaeresin refellendam innumera mihi doctorum Ecclesiasticorumtestimonia suffragantur Sed vestra authoritas sapientia tanta est ut cos coram producere non praesumam maxime cum didicerim Hilarium Ambrosium Augustinum Hieronymum Leonem Gregorium c. judicio majestatis vestrae esse damnatos Cumque Latinos omnes a regno caelorum excluscritis nescio si Gracis vel alterius linguae hominibus peperceritis Quod si forte vel illi sobrietate vestri examinis peremptoriam sententiam evadere potuerunt Mihi quid quantum ad praesens negotium spectat aut parum aut nihil prodest Cum homo tantum Latinus peregrinae linguae quam ignoro testimoniis quibus vos aut convertere possim aut convincere uti non valeam Quia sanctis Ecclesiae Doctoribus fidem praebere dedignamini ad puritlimum rivulorum omnium fontem mihi reverteudum est de Evangelicis Apostolicis seu propheticis dictis testimonia si tamen vel illa suscipitis sunt proferenda That is to refell your brutish heresie innumerable testimonies of the Ecclesiasticall learned Drs give me their Votes But your Authority and wisdome is so great that I may not presume to produce them especially seeing I have understood that you have cast off or excluded Hilary Ambrose Augustine Hierom Leo Gregory c. from the chair of the learned Doctors and from the kingdome of heaven I know not whether you will
the Scriptures as we have often quoted and then the result of Mr T. his argument will be only this Augustine read the Scriptures for originall sinne in Infants and Infant-baptisme and so did the Councill of Milevis Ergo the Councâ—ll â—f Milevis depended on the authority of Augustine A non-sequitur that every man will perceive Two Councellours urge the same clause of a statute or the same deduction thence clear to both their reasons will it follow therefore that the ones judgement depended on the other But saith Mr T. I value Augustines judgement EXAMEN just so much as his proofes and reason weigh Wee answer Animadver That 's well But as we may not extoll good men too much so nor depresse an Augustine a Luther as if we would by a back blow strike out their eyes and then say they saw nothing Augustines retractations and Luthers voluntary suffering of so many losses and crosses for the truth are incomparable signes they aspired not to be high in authority over mens consciences Augustine argued out of the Scriptures plentifully according to his light for that he held so doth Mr T. so do others Therefore let us not too rashly despise one anothers arguments The Councill of Milevis did Anathematize them that did deny originall sinne and perhaps them that said Infants were not baptized into remission of sinnes but they do not curse them that will not make Infants originall sinne an argument for Infant-baptisme Sure Augustine did not so Anathema and therefore the C. of Milevis tooke no such thing from him and therefore no wonder they doe not practise it But Mr T. again urgeth the baptisme of Augustine at above 30 years old EXAMEN §. 8. of Alipius his friend at ripe years of Adâ—odatus his sonne at 15 to prove that the custome of baptizing Infants was not so received as that the Church thought it necessary that all children of Christians by profession should be baptized in their Infancy Wee answer first in generall Animadver That they were perswaded that of Equity they ought to baptize all Christians children as the stream of Antiquity hath carried it of which afore abundantly And Mr T. himselfe chargeth Augustine and Cyprian that they thought too many Infants were to be baptized namely all that had Christian parents or undertakers If therefore in fact some few were not baptized in infancy it must needs be that there was some outward forcible stop no inward lett in the judgement As the Israelites in fact gave not their children the first Seal or signe of Circumcision for 40 years in the wildernesse by reason of their pilgrimage there so long and God bare with it though by equity they should have done it upon the eighth day after birth upon pain of cutting off Gen. 17. 2 In particular Touching Augustine's baptisme that it was not done till he was about 34 or 35 yeares of age we have before acknowledged and we shall give a full account why anon after when we have done with this 8. Sect. of Mr T. his EXAMEN and returne to his EXERCITATION Section 17. where Mr T. urgeth the same thing touching Augustine But mean while for Adeodatus Augustines sonne if Mr T. be sure he was baptized at 15 the cause might be this Seeing Augustine when he was at mans estate about 32 years old ranne into most blasphemous errors and after that became Catechumenus A Catechised about two years and so not baptized till about 34 or 35 he might possibly have a sonne of about 15 years old unbaptized till the father were owned in the Church for a Christian and then he and his sonne Adeodatus and his friend Alipius might be baptized the same Day Augustine and his friend being men Adeodatus his sonne being a youth of 15 years of age But there is no mention or probality that either Alipius had believing parents or that Alipius had been long a Christian but rather the contrary * See August Confess lib. 6. c. 7. And it is uncertain to me and not to me only looking more wishly on the wordes of Augustine whether Adeodatus were baptized the same time his father was or no ** Inde ubi tempus advenit quo me nomen dare oporteret relicto rure Mediolanum remeavimus Placuit Alipio renasci in te mecum Jam indato humilita esacramentis tuis congrua fortisumo domitore corporis ulque ad Italicum solum glaciâ—â—e â—udo pede obterendum insolito â—â—su Adjunximus etiam nobis puerum Adeodatum exâ—â—e â—â—tum carnaliter de peccato meo Tu bene feceras eum Annorum erat feâ—me qui decim ingeniâ— praeveniebat multos graves doctos viros Munera tua tibi coâ—fâ—eor do nine deus meus creator omnâ—um mulâ—um potens reformare nostra deformia Nam ego in illo puero praeter delictum nihil habebam Quod enim enutriabatur a nobis in disciplina tua tu inspiraveras nobis nullus alius Aug. Confess lib. 9. cap. 6. Nor is it of moment whether he was or was not For Mr T. his conclusion from these premisses of Augustine Adeodatus and Alipius I say his conclusion that the Church thought it not NECESSARY That all children of Christians by profession should be baptized in their Infancie doth not necessarily follow But Mr T. in his EXAMEN Sect. 8. asserts further that though he conceived with Grotius on Mat. 19.14 That Baptisme of Infants was much more frequented and with greater opinion of necessity in Affrica then in Asia or other parts of the world for saith he in the Councilis you cannot finde ancienter mention of that custome then the Councill of Carthage yet Mr T. doth 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 for such like reason I do not finde saith Mr T. that they held that Infants must be baptized out of such cases for it is cleer 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 catechising afore baptisme still continued ANIMADVERS We Answer 1. For the judgement of Grotius as it appears there we have abundantly spoken of it afore as for us 2. For this particular quotation as applyed by Mr. T. we say besides that it is a naked thing not backed to a sufficiency of a cleer and manifest assertion from negatives especially in the point of necessity we may justly Quare 1. How much more frequencie and necessity doth Mr T. meane How much more can he make appear For sure he cannot dispute from punctilio's And what use will Mr T. make of it if for a time there appeared a grain more in Africa then in Asia An Argument is not managed by countenance or gravity of asserting Men in divers countries may more frequently and with more â—â—al practise a truth and yet the
truth be still the same Yea different complexions and conditions of Countries in receiving or opposing a truth may make it to be more or lesse practised and yet the minds of true Christians in both may be alike one with the rule Yea if the more frequency of Infant Baptisme were never so ancient in Africa according to the Councils there whereof that in Cyprians time was one * Cyprian was within 148 yeers after the Apostles yet we know that it came first from Asia ** This Asia the greaâ— consisted of Anatolia Syâ—ia Palestina Armenia Arabia Media Assyria Mesopotamia Persia Chaldea Parthia Hircania Tartaria China India the Islands of the Indian and Mediterranean seas where man was created Christ born wrought mirocles suffered All the pen-men of both Testaments acted were the Monarchies and captivities over the Church Great Asia included Asia the lesse since called Anatolia * This Anatolia or Asia the lesse comprehendeth Cilicia Pamphylia Lycia Bythinia Pontus Paphlagonia Galatia Cappadociae Lycaonia Pissdia Armenia the lisse and Asia propria that is the Estern Country where were the seven Churches Revel 1. this included Asia Propria ** Which comprehends Caria Jonia Lydiaa Aeulis and both the phyrigiae's of which at least is meant that Act. 19.10 and 27. All Asia heard the Word of the Lord Jesus And certaine which were the chief of Asia sent unto Paul Sutably we quoted Justin Martyr for one of our witnesses since the Apostles time of Infant Baptisme He was a Samaritan which is part of Palestine in Asia the Great Genere Samaritanus atque è Samaritanis ad Christi fidem transiit Epiphan Some of Samaria were converted by Christ John 4. v. 5. v. 29. v. 30. v. 39. After in the Apostles time the Word was preached to many Villages of the Samaritans Act. 8.25 Justin Martyr was converted to the faith about 28 yeares after the Apostles To that of not baptizing children in Africa but in danger of death or c. we have shewd the contrary out of severall antiquities particularly out of Cyprian whither we refer the reader And sure enough from the life of Augustin of which anon after it is cleer that Augustines sicknes whiles young was some occasion of deferring his baptism for that time For he saith in his first book of Confessions and c. 11. That having been sick they deferred their thoughts of baptizing him that they might the more freely give him his will to do what he would for the furtherance of his recovery which they might not allow him if once he were under the bonds of Baptisme Those words Mr T. addes Children were baptized for the health of body or such like reason seem to clash against that he so often presseth in his book that Augustine and the Ancients did too much put salvation and the taking away Originall sinne in Baptisme which presently Mr T. repeaâ—es within 25 lines following You may conceive saith Mr T. how light Augustines judgement was by considering the ground upon which Augustine held and urged the baptisme of Infants so vehemently which was saith Mr T. as all know that read his works the opinion he had that without baptisme Infants must be damned by reason of Originall sin which is not taken away but by baptisme and for this quotes severall places out of Augustine T. 7. de Nat. Gra. c. 8. T. 2. Ep. 28. For the distinction of the Chatechised and the Baptized and that the use of catechising afore baptisme still continued and a great while after he means Augustines time All this doth not overthrow the common tenet and practise of that antiquity and upward as well as downward in baptizing Christians children The chatechising being for the children of those whose parents were not supposed Christians as before we abundantly shewed out of Tertullian and Iunius upon him and out of Pareus Calvin Bullinger Marlorat c. on Heb. 6.2 And this is practised in all Protestant Kingdomes to this day notwithstanding the constancy of baptizing Infants If there be not used a right judgement to determine who are Christian-parents that is the fault of men not of the Ordinance or its institution If I should go about to answer that quotation of Augustine with others out of Augustine I might abound with his sentences for Infant Baptisme As his collation of Baptisme and Circumcision in many places of his works His Collation of baptisme with the Flood the Cloud and Red Sea divers times His sayings That Baptisme is not to be deferred That repentance is not absolutely universally necessary before baptism His severall tracts of the Baptism of little ones c. Which we need not quote to them that are acquainted with Augustine All which shew in what sence Augustine spake of catechising before baptisme viz. of those whose Parents were not Christians If with Nazianzen he had held that little children of three years old being Chatechised to answer that they understood not might be baptized what is that more to the purpose then to baptize them whiles Infants We must understand that in most of the Fathers times there were no whole Kingdomes or for the most part converted or Religious worship set up by allowance of the state but the generall of them were heathens Therefore of necessity there must have been some catechising afore the baptizing of some And for baptizing Infants for bodily health c. named but not quoted out of Augustine as his opinion we can answer it out of Augustine who saith T. 7. Col. 84. c. Edit Basil Ibid. Col. 55. That Baptisme doth not profit all That Baptisme profits not without charity That one baptisme by faith purgeth And that the Vertue of Baptisme is not in the water but in the word which we forbear to quote and translate at large as having too much if it might have been prevented troubled the readâ—r with quotations already They are obvious to him that reads Augustine But Mr T. EXAMEN §. 8. objects that catechizing afore baptisme continued in Augustines time and after a great while in Asia because Peter Cluniacensis saith that there had been none but Infants baptized in all Europe for 300 or 500 years afore his time but doth not deny the baptisme of men of ripe years in Asia We answer First touching Cluniacensis we have said abundance afore Secondly Animadver that this Argument doth no more determine any thing about Asia then about Affrica which is Mr T. his Qu. in hand And for Affrica we have heard abundantly out of all sorts of antiquity of the baptizing of Infants Thirdly Cluniacensis professeth himself a Latin ignorant of Greek and other tongues and therefore doth not determine here any thing concerning places out of Europe but is silent concerning them Fourthly Touching baptisme of Infants in Asia we heard afore To that Mr T. objects Augustine and Ambrose his judgement for Infant-baptisme as putting too much in the ordinance as conducing to salvation
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
cannot see what M. T. means in that darknesse If he means baptizing of the mother having the child in her wombe we have shewed afore that Councils have enacted against it Or what ever M. T. means we know no allowance given to it by orthodox Churches To his fourth particular of baptizing Infants of unceâ—taâ—n progeny Exercitat We answer Animad that this cannot follow upon our Tenet of baptizing believers Infants If others practises extended further it was the darknesse and corruption of the times without our line and the line of Scripture To his fifth particular Exercitat That they are baptized in the name of the Lord who know not the Lord nor ever perhaps will consent to the confession of his name Wee answer Animad Supposing that M. Tombes means saving knowledge or else hee speaks to little puepose 1 The same inconvenience might Abraham have objected against Circumcision of little ones at eight days old But hee did not yea hee circumcised Ismael though the Lord told him the blessing should be upon Isaak Gen. 17. Secondly The same objection wee can justly make against the Anabaptists baptisme by too much experience and testimony too from some of their writings wherein as we have before quoted that upon confession of sins or profession of the faith of the Anabaptists d See before Epiphan And the book called the mark or character of the Beast such are to be baptized though things otherwise are much wanting or amisse Thirdly If Infants may have saving grace as John Baptist had and those Mark 10. And M. T. before confessed they might And the meer acts of the reasonable soule doe not depend upon the organs of the body much lesse doth grace depend on them and the grace of God may act as conveniently in a well waking child as in a man a sleep or in a swound then we cannot boldly say with M. T. that all Infants that are baptized know not the Lord or doe not consent to the Lord. What they will prove after the promise of God I am the God of thee and they seed is as sure an evidence as the judgment of the Anabaptists touching them they baptiâ—e To the sixth particular Exercitat That Infant Baptime hath admitted into the communion of the Church and to the Lords Supper many ignorant and prophane For who sayth M. T. can deny rightly the right of the Church to the baptized Wee answer To that that of admission of them to the Lords Supper because baptized Animad is a meere Scripturelesse and an alogâ—call irrationall non sâ—quitur The Scriptures that bids give a childe of eight dayes the first seale and doth tell us Christ laid his hands on little ones and no where forbids to baptize believers Infants do tell us Christ gave the Communion only to persons of ripe yeers and forbids us to give it but to them that duly examine themselves It is unreasonable to infer that if one hath committed a fault in not right using the first Sacrament proving ignorant or prophane that he should be admitted to the second till hee amend Yea if M. T. holds Excommunication out and Baptisme an admission into particular Church Communion how I leave him to make out if I say he holds these then I suppose if he were in a particular Church he would give his vote to Excommunicate one that walks profanely after Baptism Then by the same proportion wee may keep back from the Communion one baptized in infancy and after proving profane and by a better pretence seeing by Baptisme we did not admit him into a particular Church where peculiarly is administred the Communion of the Lords Supper To M. T. his seventh particular in the minor of his eighth Argument Exercitat That Infant-baptisme doth prevent the order of Discipline that first a man be baptized and after is among the catechised We answer Animad 1 That God commanded Abraham to give the first signe or seal to all his male Family Gen. 17. After Gen. 18.19 it is said he would instruct his children 2 Instruction may follow receiving the Lords Supper else farewell Preaching therefore it may follow Baptisme 3 Wee have shewed plentifully out of good antiquity and famous modern Authors upon Heb. 6.2 That the Doctrine on Catechizings of Baptismes belonged to unbelievers children before Baptisme and the Doctrine of imposition of hands belonged to believers Infants after Baptisme 4 That to acknowledge one a member of a particular Church by a generall confession and the common act of Baptism is a greater overthrow to dicipline by leaving this man in that condition that you cannot call him to an account nor is hee engaged to come at your call to give you an account however he walks Exercitat To M. T. his 8 9 10 particulars That the Sacrament of Baptisme is turned into a meere Ceremony yea prophane meeting and feasting by Infant Baptisme Men forget Baptisme as if never administred It takes away zeal or at least diminisheth it Animad I say to these that I were as good give no answer to these empty things as to give such an answer as is most sutable for then that answer must be as triviall as the argument M. Tombes can answer himselfe that the same thing might be objected against the institution of Circumcision That there was a Feast at the weaning of Isaack yet no prophanesse and the Feast of Charity accompanied the Lords Supper a good while ere it degenerated That wee can well enough minde at ripe yeeres what was bequethed by Testament to us in our nonage That a sealed Covenant preceding when it comes into consideration by due education cannot cool our zeal towards a naturall worship to own God CHAP. XIX Exercitat TO M.T. his 1 2 and fourth particulars of the minor of his ninth argument That Infant baptisme hath occasioned the needlesse disputes about the baptisme of Excommunicates-Infants about the baptisme of Apostates-Infants about the baptisme of Next-unbelieving Parents Infants the Grand Parents about the baptisme of being believers Animad Wee answer that in our Churches there are no such disputes about these things We can easily by the tenour of the Scripture resolve on the negative that the children are not to be baptized whiles the next Parents are such as M. T. hath mentioned Exercitat To the third particular that Infant baptisme hath occasioned an unnecessary dispute about the baptizing of the Infants of believing parents that are not members of gathered Churches Animad We answer I never perceived the world troubled with this dispute Divers Churches without dispute can practice the baptizing of such And other Churches without dispute practice it not and so as much as in them is are kept back the more Infants to be baptized at ripe yeers according to M. T. his define who hath moved more dispute then any twenty of our Churches formerly have made
way of reply 1 To Cyprian c. They hold not universality of grace but the indefinit offer of grace How they held in point of baptisme and upon howmany Scripture grounds we have before shewed cap. 13 14. 2 To Augustine we reply that M. T. before fiercely charged Augustine for holding Infant-baptisme upon Cyprian grounds Nor doe I remember in all M. T. his quotations out of Augustine any such thing as he here mentions of him 3 To Bernard we reply Thst M. T. tells us neither what nor where he sayth it It he did say so any where we know he lived in late corrupted times and far more worthy to be slighted in this then Cyprian Augustine c. whom M.T. hath so slighted 4 To the English Liturgie Tolerabiles ineptiae Calvin seeing M.T. aleadgeth that English-masse those tolerable fooleries as Calvin calls them Covenanted against by us all put down by Parliament and no more to be urged against us then against M. Tombes himselfe and the Preachers of his judgement We reply give the Devill his due the English Liturgie urgeth for infant baptisme the 10 of Mar. And the Catechisme therein sayth Faith is necessary to Baptisme what ever other unnecessary expressions be added 5 To the Lutherans opinion seeing we must take it upon M. T. his bare word we say onely this That M.T. confessed that infants may when infants have regeneration saving grace c. 6 To that of the faith of a holy Nation we have answered afore upon M.T. his reply to 1 Pet 29. And add so far as a Nation is holy and believing so far all parents are such too and so this sixth particular is all one with the fifth of believing parents which we have maintained all along as a sufficient ground of giving their children the first seal 8 To that of parensa in Covenant in a gathered Church we have answered a little afore a See afore in Chap. 13. Infaults in Disciplne we add that those that so practise looke in baptisme to the saith of parents more then to that their Covenant CHAP. XXII THe last and that a weighty reason of doubting is because Infant baptisme seems to take away one Exercit. perhaps the primary end of Baptism Argu. 12 § 25. for many things argue that it was one end of Baptism that it should be a signe that the baptized shews himself a disciple and confesseth the faith in which he hath been instructed The Argument against Infant-Baptisme from its voyding the chief end of Baptisme confirmed 1 The requiring of confession by John Baptist and the Apostles was wont to be before Baptism Luk. 3.10 Act. 8.35 Act. 16.31 2 The frequent manner of speaking in the new Testament which puts Baptism for Doctrine Act. 10.37 Act. 19.3 shews this Beza in his A not on Act. 19.3 The answer is most apposite in which they signifie that they professed in Baptism the Doctrine propounded by John and confirmed by use of Baptism with which they had been baptized whereby they had acknowledged Christ but very slenderly 3 The form of Christs institution Mat 28.19 compared with the phrase as it is used 1 Cor. 1.13 Or were you baptized into the name of Paul implies the same On which place Beza The third reason is taken from the form and end of Baptisme in which we give our name to Christ being called upon with the Father and Holy Spirit 4 That which is said John 4 2. He made and baptized more disciples And Mat. 28.19 Going make Disciples in all nations baptizing them Intimate this And if as some affirme Baptisme was in use with the Jews in the initiating of proselytes into the profession of Judaisme this opinion is the more confirmed But in Infant-Baptisme the matter is so carried that Baptism serves to confirm a benefit not to signifie a profession made and so one perhaps the chief end of Baptism is voyded And here I think it is to be minded that the usuall description of a Sacrament and such as are like to it That it is a visible signe of invisible grace hath occasioned the misunderstanding of both Sacraments as if they signed a divine benefit not our duty to which in the first place the Iustitution had respect In seems to some that Infant-baptism should be good because the devil requires witches to renounce it which reason if ought worth might as well prove Baptism of any Infants Baptism by a midwife good because these the devill requires them to renounce as well that which is of the Infants of believers by a lawfull Minister But the true reason why he requires the Baptisme of witches to be renounced by them is not because the baptisme is good in respect of the administration of it but because the Faith mentioned in the form of baptisme is good they that renounce not their baptisme do shew their adherence to that faith in some sort which cannot stand with an explicite Covenant with the Devill Nor is the assuming of baptism in ripe years by those who were washed in infancie a renounceing of baptisme as some in their grosse ignorance conceit but indeed a firmer avouching of baptisme according to Christs minde This more likely might be inferred from the Devils practice in requiring witches to renounce their baptisme That the profession of Faith is the main businesse in Baptisme which should be before Baptisme if it were rightly administred after the first pattern We answer Animad 1. In generall That as circumcising of infants did not in se in regard of itself intrinsecally considered take away one end of it to wit that signing of duty and obligement unto profession so nor doth the baptisme of infants 2 That signing of profession is not the primary that is either the first or chiefe end of baptisme but the signing of Gods favour to us and his giving grace into us whereby we should afterwards walke dutifully towards him For the seal confirmes the Covenant and so runs the Covenant of Grace 3 We before proved by two Scriptures b Iohn 9.28 Acts 15.10 that the children of those parents that are reputed members of the visible Church were accounted and called Disciples in both Testaments 4 That children signed with the 1 signe or seal are ingaged to be active Disciples when they come to be of years as in the Old Testament so in the New as we have before shewed For Circumcision see Gal. 5.3 and for Baptisme see Mat. 28.19 20. ver 19. Goe teach and Baptize c. ver 20. Teaching them effectually so the word signifies to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 5 That the Anabaptists generally affirme with M.T. that they must be first made Disciples and known to be made such before they are baptized and yet M. T. asserts a little afore that baptisme exhibits him â—â—member of the Church and here that baptisme is a signe that manifests him to be a Disciple Now if they have not