Church ought not to bee baptized but to stay till the babe they went with were brought forth lest that when shee were baptized it might seeme that the child in her wombe was baptized with her as being altogether united to her whence it will come to passe that after the babe is borne either it may bee not left unenlightned or unbaptized or if it bee baptized it may bee thought that it is rebaptized This hee maketh the occasion of the Law of that antient not Latine but Greeke councell which was a good while before the first Nicene Councell And it is very remarkable what was the occasion it was double as is evident 1. That they might avoyd the mischiefe of leaving babes unbaptized 2. That they might avoyd the other of rebaptizing two grand hinges of Anabaptisme these were such mischiefes as it seemes in their eyes that they would not have expressions let fall by them that might any way occasion the same so that both these in those times were rather inter borrenda then recipienda But let us heare what Balsamon addeth further there speaking of such Infants that they could not make promise c. for how it is with the babe in the wombe none can enquire nor be suretie for them saith he but Infants scil that are borne doe affirme by those which are their susceptors and are accounted to bee actually enlightned or baptized with divine illustration or divine baptisme they then accounted baptisme of Infants no Antichristian baptisme as the Authors of this Treatise and as John Spilsbury Mr. Blackwood and Henry Denne doe but divine Baptisme the Baptisme of the Lord wherefore I conclude that this testimony is grosly abused by Hugo Grotius SECT III. Rupertus Tritiensis THe next Author quoted is Rupertus Tritiensis l. 4. de divinis Officiis c. 18. both for the confirmation of the 4th and 7th proposition the same is urged by A. R. also to like purpose but by this authors leave that there bee no guile hid I shall make bold to transcribe the very words of Rupertus Abbas Tritiensis of which the Treatise mentioned some pieces scil It was the custome of old in the holy Church not to celebrate the Sacrament of regeneration at any other time scil then Easter and Pentecost of which hee spake before unlesse in those unto whom possibly danger might accrue by the comming of some infirmity or danger of death upon them this exception which is in his the very quaesitum the Treatise and A. R. leave wholly out how candidly they deale herein let all judge All the off-spring of the Church almost which throughout the whole yeare it could beget anew by the preaching of the word the solemnitie of Easter approaching gave in their names this day and throughout the following dayes unto the very solemnitie it selfe of Easter each one hearing the rule of faith whence also such an one was called a Catechumen for a Catechumen faith Rupertus is by interpretation a hearer both the suckling and the growne person at length at the full time after the full of the moone in the solemnitie at the holy Font repeating the symboll with full beleefe It scil the off-spring of the Church did die and rise againe with Christ but after Christianitie increased and that net of the Gospell was filled with Fish because that it was dangerous to delay so great a multitude by reason of the casualtie of death which in a multitude of men is manifold especially in regard of a company of Infants of Christian Parents much encreasing whose tender life is very oft by a small occasion cut off it seemed good to the holy Church leave off baptisme being granted every where yea offered to prevent all dangers and yet in a few to celebrate the solemnitie of baptisme with the resurrection of the Lord to which it is like c. by this that hath been said that which the Treatise and A. R. intend to disprove is rather confirmed and the guilefull wresting of the testimony discovered for besides what hath been before shewed that Infants baptisme was before this custome of baptisme at Easter and Pentecest came up and likewise whilst it was held up Infants being then and there baptized as well as at other times as by Austins testimony Serm. 4. ad Neoph. appeared this testimony also tells us 1 That baptisme of all sorts of persons in case of weakenesse and danger at other times was in use of old 2 That sucklings as well as growne ones were accounted under the notion of the off-spring of the Church begotten by the word scil in their parents which being begotten thereby in their right also their children were in churched with them 3 Confession of faith with full beleefe by others in stead of sucklings was counted as their confession the lactati as well as the grandescentes are said to make such confession of faith which they could not doe but by others 4 That there were present at this solemnitie a multitude of Infants as well as growne ones which did Sacramentally die and rise with Christ of old 5 That they baptized not of old all sorts of children at such times but onely the Infants of Christians and that upon the grounds of mortalitie and other weakenesse and hazzard was there made a change as well in respect of the growne part of the multitude as the Infants onely 6 That the change that was made upon the grounds of mortalitie and increase of the multitude was not in respect of the subjects that afterwards Infants should bee baptized whereas onely growne ones before were baptized for both sorts were before and after that custome came up baptized as wee proved but it was onely in respect of the place where and season when that whereas of old they used to come to some one great Citie and that at these seasons of yeare onely now passim every where and at any other time they might bee baptized onely some few that were borne a little before these solemne times as Rupertus in his other bookes mentioneth were reserved to bee then baptized to grace as it were the solemnitie And this may fully answer that testimony which this Treatise Proposition 7. and A. R. also urge out of Joannes Beemius de moribus Gentium speaking to like purpose So then Rupertus Tritiensis and his companion are both as much abused herein as other witnesses produced or rather traduced SECT IIII. Cassander THe next witnesse is Cassander a stout adversary to them yet fetched in by the Authors of this Treatise to prove the 4th and 7th Proposition Cassander in l. de Infantium baptismo is said to say It is certaine that some beleevers in times past have with holden baptisme from their children untill they were growne and could understand and remember the mysteries of their faith yea also counselled not to administer baptisme as by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen appeareth And Proposition 7. Cassander in his booke de Infantium baptismo saith
of his Law it is all applyed to all indefinitely yet sense and reason tells us that sundry of the children were neither capable then of such observing of all Gods words no nor so much as hearing the words read at that time in such sort as thereby at present to bee stirred up to feare or obey the Lord but some things onely are appliable to the whole assembly wholly other things now mentioned to the whole at present onely in respect of the growne part and to the others no other thâ—n as involved in any such acts of their parents at most so Joel â— 14. â— solemne assembly of all the inhabitants of the land is to 〈◊〉 convented for fasting so chap. 2. 1. againe repeated and ver 15 16 17. instance is given in the sucklings as to bee a part of that assembly for that end and the maine dutie vers 13 14 is laid forth as required of them all which are called to this solemne fast scil not meerely to abstaine from food or to expresse sorrow by rending their garments but to rend their hearts by godly compunction and sorrow c. all will yeeld that such things are not properly applyable to sucklings but to some of the assembly nor yet will any in reason exclude Infants from being of that Church assembly for such Church use according as they were capable of any thing mentioned albeit not capable of all mentioned Jer. 43. 4. 6 7 disobedience to Gods voyce is applied to all the people yet not properly verified in all the children which were of that people and company Deut. 29. 1. All Israel is said to have seene those wonders in Egypt and yet many of them that were then growne it being 40. yeares after their comming out thence vers 5. never saw the same much lesse did the little ones which were a part of that assembly vers 14. yet who will conclude because little ones were not Israel seeing theâ—e wonders that therefore they were not Israel entring into Covenant vers 11 12. and marke the phrase applied to the little ones that they also entred into covenant with God ibid. as well as God is said to make his covenant with them vers 14 15. this was a covenant of grace as hath been proved so that Hen. Dens notion holds not concerning God being in a sense in covenant with Infants but they may not bee said to enter into covenant with him that by the way To returne to that in hand nations baptized Matth. 28. are to bee taught to observe Christs commandements but non sequitur that Infants are no part of the Churches in the nation to bee baptized so here Infants beleeve not actually c. non sequitur ergo not to bee added to the Church in a solemne way of initiation to Church estate inchoatively by externall baptisme Both may stand together and have their truth of the whole in some things wholly wherein they are capable as of Church estate and baptisme in others true of the whole in respect of some part thereof as actuall beleeving To like purpose C. B. argueth weakely in his sixth argument that the whole citie was baptized men and women mentioned not their children too as if therefore excluded I may as well argue from Gen. 14. 11 12. That those Kings tooke all the goods of Sodome and Lot ergo they tooke no people besides contrary to vers 16. or if they did take people and women yet not children too And if Lot were first taken and then redeemed by Abraham with others yet not ergo his children or daughters or if then under the notion of women yet not a word of children wherefore either they were left behind in the Citie without their Parents when they were taken or if taken with the Cities and persons yet not brought backe againe which would bee absurd to affirme Secondly suppose the beleeving Jewes children were not just at that time baptized when their Parents were thus solemnly admitted to that Church of Christians yet non sequitur that they were not baptized afterwards When members are solemnly admitted to compleat and fixed membership in our Churches wee baptize not oft times their little ones the first day of that their admittance yet doe it afterwards as occasion is offered and their desire thereof signified SECT VIII YEa but neither then nor in any other Text in the Acts is it ever mentioned that any children of any beleeving Jewes were baptized A. Non sequitur that therefore they were never baptized Many things of great weight were done by Christ and so by his Apostles which were not recorded yet not therefore never acted by them John 20. 30 31. of which see more before touching consequences of Scripture But doe our opposites indeed conclude that none of the beleeving Jewes children were ever baptized by Apostolicall approbation Is it imaginable that among so many thousand beleeving Jewes at least ecclesiastically such which are so moved and touched in the case of their childrens being not circumcised and sealed that way to the covenant that it would not much more startle them to suppose such a tenet or practise as to deny them to bee sealed any way by initiatory sealing at all as neither by circumcision so not by baptisme Are they so ready to move contentions in that point Acts 22. 21. and upon but a supposed deniall of it and are they no way moved so much as to put the case state the question to be satisfied from the old Testament for no other Scripture was then extant why their Infants which were ever used to bee reckoned in Abrahams covenants so sealed thereto by the seale then only in use but now they are either wholly excluded any Church interest and any covenant interest actually or if owned yet as such yet why denied of that which is now the initiatory seale of such interest in the covenant Yea doth Peter expresly mind them of the interest of their children as well as themselves in the promise wishing them therefore to be baptized and this occasioned no stirring of questions and cases why on the same ground their children must not be also baptized other contentions about other things are mentioned and other differences in points controvertible in those times as Acts 11. 2 3. and 15. 1. 2. c. and 21. 11. and 6. 1 2. and 15. 38 39. and Gal. 2. 11. Surely then either the beleeving Jewes which when worse men had that priviledge of their childrens covenant and Church estate and right to the initiatory seale the case is so soone altered with them that they thinke it no matter of scruple to call the deniall and omission of it into question or to assay to desire satisfaction in it for matter of judgement and practise in the case or if starting it why is not so great a controversie mentioned as started by some at least that could not so wholly forget their childrens good when solicitous about their owne and when so
Austin Jerom and Ambrose were baptized when grown up men yea but when they better understood the point they disallow neglect of childrens Baptisme as the parents sinne as Jerom in his Epistle to Laeta and Austin frequently and so Ambrose all one for Paedobaptisme as an ordinance of God and so as counting it sinne to neglect it SECT VI. BUt to returne to our stories wee know what Origen and Austin have said what was the use of the Churches from the Apostles time as well as what was done in their time wherefore if wee had no instances of children baptized that would suffice But story will furnish us with instances of children baptized within the compasse of time wherein this Treatise presenteth us with instances Polydore Virgil in his second book of the History of England speaking of King Lucius saith that he Anno salutis 182. regni vero 13. being moved out of a love of Religion dealt with Eleutherius Bishop of Rome by letters that hee would admit him and his people by baptisme unto the number of Christians Upon which Fugatius and Damianus men of eminent pietie were sent into Britaine who baptized the King with his house and his whole people and therefore the Brittish children too unlesse no part of Lucius his people which Johannes Balaeus more fully cleareth in his booke of Brittish writers Centuria prima cap. 27. where hee reciteth the occasion why Lucius sent Eluinus and Meduinus two prime men unto Eleutherius to bee this Anno 170. according to Balaeus others say Anno 173. And Lucius sent thither the more speedily because hee heard that the name of Christians begun every where to be inlarged and that many of the Nobilitie especially at Rome together with their wives and children had sworne unto that Christian faith scil were baptized for that was that hee writ about as before wee had it that hee and his might bee reckoned amongst the number of Christians and baptisme is a solemne obligation of the party baptized unto the Christian faith Afterward when the Pagan Saxons had overrun Brittaine and Religion began to be worne out againe Gregory the first sent over Austin Anno 596. where after he had preached amongst the heathen Saxons hee baptized 1000. men women and children in a River History of Brittaine pag. 214. Inas also King of the West Saxons with his Counsell made Lawes touching the orderly living of Ministers and Infants being baptized within 30. dayes Beda hist l. 3. c. 7. Beza's hist Dr. Vsher also in his booke of the Religion of the ancient Irish cap. 5. saith that the Irish did baptize their Infants without any consecrated Chrisme and that corrupt use of Chrisme wee know was very ancient indeed And before Clodovius King of France was converted whilst hee was yet Pagan his gratious wife Cleotild daughter of the Duke of Burgoine having a sonne by him it was baptized by the same Remigius Bishop of Raines which afterward baptized him being converted as the Treatise saith at which Pagan Clodovius was at first displeased Afterward shee brought forth another sonne which by the Kings consent was in like sort baptized after which Pagan Clodovius being put to the worse by the Almaines vowed if hee got the victory he would imbrace the Christian faith to which his wife had so oft perswaded him and proving conquerour did so and was baptized by Remigius Fabian 1 par of his History c. 97. the Centurie writers give other Instances Cent. 6. cap. 6. mentioning out of Gregorius Turocensis the young sonne of Chilperick also of Theodebert borne to King Childebert as baptized as also Theodorick another child of his baptized also of a young sonne to King Egilolph baptized other instances might bee given out of Nauclerus the authors of this Treatise mention Constantines baptisme when so old but why doe they not mention also his sonne Crispus too which was baptized as well as hee by Sylvester Bishop of Rome saith Nicephorus hist Eccles l. 7. c. 23. the authors mention Clodoneus his Baptisme but not his children and Constantius but not his sons baptisme doe either discover their ignorance or guile SECT VII THe next Authors testimony to the third Proposition is that of Polydor Virgil de Inventoribus rerum li. 4. cap. 4. It was the custome in old time to baptize those for the most part which were come to their full growth apparelling them after baptisme in white which was done at Easter and Pentecost c. yea but before the old time of baptizing grown persons at Easter which was certaine hundred yeeres after Christ ere that custome began children were baptized as is confessed they were in Origens time and before by a Church custome for then it was the custome before this custome came up here mentioned to baptize children And let us heare whether Pollidor Vilgil in the very quoted place will not say as much for hee there expressing his judgement for Paedobaptisme doth quote Cyprian as speaking of it as from the beginning that albeit Infants could not make confession of their faith by reason of age yet others confession should bee instead thereof in baptisme now if that were à principio even from the beginning of the Christian Church Paedobaptisme was ancienter then this old custome and for this also Polydore there citeth Ambrose lib. 2. de vocatione gentium SECT VIII BEatus Rhenanus upon Tertullian is next who is said to write that the old custome was that those that were come to their full growth at Easter c. they leave out the word ferè almost or for that most part c. and the reasons hee gives why it was so scil because thousands of Pagans daily flocked then to the Churches then the Infants being compared to those Pagan parents and children which could conceive of what was taught them yea and those adult Pagans thus flocking in by thousands daily no wonder that it bee said that it was then the use for the most part that those who were baptized were at their full growth and adding the other causes of deferring baptisme no wonder Shamier who yet speaketh of Paedobaptisme speakes of so few children of old baptized CHAP. V. SECT I. TErtullian lib. de baptismo cited also by Mr. Blackwood more amply thus for every persons condition disposition and age the delay of baptisme is more profitable especially about little ones for what need is there if there bee need as some copies have it which Mr. B. leaveth out that sureties should bee hazzarded who by their mortalitie may faile of their promises and bee deceived with the going forward of an evill towardlinesse but herein the treatise dealeth more plainly then Mr. B. who leaveth out that saying cited in Tertullian Suffer little children to come to mee upon which hee glosseth as followeth in Mr. B. Let them come when they are young when able to bee instructed let them become Christians when they know Christ c. Ibid. for no lesse cause are
as of much use on his part in way of authoritie yet saith hee will not regard any authorities which the other party at least bring above the limit of time But to returne to Chrysostome who in his 40. Homil. upon Genesis saith But our circumcision or grace I say of Baptisme hath cure without griefe and brings innumerably good things to us c. and it hath no limited time set as there was but it is lawfull to receive this circumcision made without hands either in our first or middle or last age and so in his homily ad Neophytos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this cause wee also baptize little ones which have no sinne meaning of their owne have not committed actuall sinnes that to them righteousnesse holinesse adoption inheritance and fraternitie of Christ may be communicated that they may all become his members and an habitation of his Spirit Anno 430. Of Theodoret Theodoret in his Epitome of divine decrees and Cap. of baptism for baptism is not like a razour as the frantique Messalians say taking away onely sinnes that are past for that God giveth in superabundantly for if this only were the effect of baptisme why doe we baptize infants which have not yet relished sin for the Sacrament doth not promise onely those things but greater for it is the pledge of future good things and a type of future resurrection and it is the communication of the Lords death and participation of his resurrection the garment of salvation and gladnesse For as many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ and as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his death that as Christ was raised from the dead so wee should walke in newnesse of life and adding haec nos de sanctissimo baptismo sentire docuit Apostolus and the Apostle hath taught us thus to hold concerning baptisme and makes those speeches Gal. 3. and Rom. 6. to bee verified in Infants baptizing as well as others and that they are baptized in respect of future good rather then present and that the Apostle taught them so to thinke hereof Nor is that Dionysius Graecus who ever hee were albeit not the Areopagite yea albeit having sundry mixtures in his booke to bee wholly slighted or neglected SECT II. Cassander de baptis Inf. Of the Easterne and Greek Churches As for the Easterne and Greeke Churches Cassanders testimony is very round and full albeit their discipline may well bee gathered by their teachers and councells doctrine speaking of testimony of Paedobaptisme he saith but especiall and chiefe testimony and weight of authoritie to this baptisme of Infants is further added from the universall and constant custome which unto this day in the Churches which are extant in the world and there are many such without the limits of the Roman Church is retained for the Churches which are yet remaining in Greece Asia Syria Aegypt and India and the Russians and Muscovites which follow the Greeke orders lastly the Aethiopians under the government of Prester John I say all these Christians professing nations although differing in some opinions and rites yet in the custome of baptizing Infants they all of old agreed among themselves some stating the 8. and the Aethiopians the 40. day for baptizing them unlesse in the case of danger or those of the female Sex The Russians and Armenians baptize Infants as they doe Adults unlesse that when they baptize Infants there are witnesses and the Indian Christians doe so likewise for which hee quotes Josephus Judas in his Aethiopian navigations and Franciscus Alvares and it 's not credible that such Churches so averse from the Latines would yet buckle to their customes of consecrating the unleavened bread or eating thngs strangled or blood that they did borrow this of Paedobaptisme so much abhord formerly by them from the Westerne Churches and Paget in his Christianography citeth a speech of the Bishop of Bitonto in the Councell of Trent acknowledging of the Greeke Church thus ea igitur Graecia mater est that the Greeke Church is that mother to whom the Latin owneth whatever it hath see the acts of the Councell of Trent pag. 18. and hee mentions the forme of the Russians baptisme the Priest when hee dippeth the child useth these words in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost and as oft as the God-fathers are asked whether they renounce the Devill so oft they spit on the ground Guagniny relig Muscovit In the Greeke Church the Priest having said certaine prayers taking the child in his armes putteth him three times into the water saying The servant of God N N. is baptized in the name of the Father the Sonne and Holy Ghost Jerom the Patriarch pag. 103. and the same doth Thomas Aquinas observe in his third part Quest 6. Artic. 8. Quest 67. Artic. 6. and Quest 66. Aâ—…tic the 5th And the same doth Dominic a Sot in quest 1. Art 8. testifie and let mee adde two things more First that the doctrine of Paedobaptisme was never ex professo opposed by any Orthodox Churches or Christians in all the times of old as farre as I can finde of Tertullians mind wee have spoken before and Gregory Nazianzen how farre they went Auxentius the Arrian Bishop of Millain as Bullinger in his Decads hath it did so and so indeed did the Samosatenian Heretiques The Donatists they baptized Infants witnesse the 48. Canon of the third Carthaginian Councell in reference to Siritius and Simplicianus So did other African Councels in Austins time ordaine that children baptized by Donatists should not bee rebaptized the Pelagians themselves denied it not wholly Austin in his 14. Sermon de verbis Apostoli baptizandâ—… esse parvulos nemo dubitet c. none need to doubt of baptisme since even those here doubt not which in part doe contradict scil the Pelagians there are cases and times wherein some one of the servants of God saw much more then many and most did as Athanasius and some few more in the point of the Divinitie of Christ in that Arrian age and Paphnutius the Confessor in the point of Ministers marriage to which the Fathers of the Nicene Councell had like to have gone contrary and yet before and after these times whole Churches and Councels held out as much as these Saints did SECT IIII. Object NO such example in the opposers of Paedobaptisme Yes you will say Berengarius about a 1050. and afterwards Peter de Brucis and the Albingenses and so the Waldenses for they had such diverse names according to places and countries in which they were scattered c. they denied it and some of them appealed to the Scriptures and to the Greeke Church for warrant Answ I deny not but that the Popish writers as their manner is use to brand the servants of God with some odious tenents for which all would hate them when that they never held the same but that old accuser of the Brethren casteth on by
and this be the common enforcing reason to both it must hold as well in either of them considered apart as in both of them joyntly taken And I would know if the Apostle had from such a ground of the promise urged one already baptized to repent onely had it not beene sufficient or suppose hee had to deale with one that in his judgement had repented already urging him onely to bee baptized because the promise belonged to him had not this been of sufficient force thereunto no rationall person I thinke will deny it The minor will appeare by declaring the groundwork upon which the Apostle urged them to bee baptized Now this was the onely ground upon which Peter urged them as to the former dutie of repenting so to the later of being baptized For the promise is or belongs to you scil the promise of grace of remission of sinnes c. as before was cleared Yea but repentance is called so too from them on this ground and that Infants are not capable of To this wee have formerly answered why it was meete to require as we doe some testimony of repentance in offensive members of a corrupt Church albeit a true visible Church as was that of the Jewes if they will bee fixed members of purer Churches as was that Church of Christians vers 41. and as members thereof partake of the seales yet wee doe not expect the same of their children too under no such actuall scandall but baptize them in their confessing parents right also Besides it appeareth before that it was a sufficient ground on which to urge the baptisme of such or such a person as considered in it selfe apart Now that the groundworke scil interest externall at least was that interest of those persons not yet savingly wrought upon in the promise of grace that appertaineth to such Infants of inchurched and externally covenant parents it appeareth in this very Scripture the persons spoken to were members of that true visible Church of the Jewes visibly in the covenant as wee proved the persons spoken of also were their owne naturall children as was likewise proved and of them also Peter avoweth even after Christs ascension and in reference to participation in the seale of baptisme in a Church of Christians That the promise is to your children so that the conclusion followeth that the baptisme of such children is virtually called upon as well as of adult persons SECT VII Object YEa but the Jewes children were not then baptized Acts 2. Answ It 's more then such as so speake can prove from the Text. No will some say but it is not For they that gladly received the word saith the Text were baptized vers 41. And they continued in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers vers 42. and 44. All that beleeved had all things common 44. and sold their possessions c. vers 45. and continued daily in the Temple c. vers 46. which are not appliable to Infants And what then therefore other things there mentioned were not so too non sequitur what more usuall in Scripture then to speake of things in a collective way of persons which are not all and each of them appliable to all and each particular person of that company but by a Synecdoche some things are spoken of the whole wholly but others are onely appliable to some parts of that whole It 's said in this place all that beleeved were together and had all thing common and sold their possessions vers 44 45. will any take this of the whole company in all the parts of it all were not capable of such an act applied to all as not all having possessions to sell for some were in need rather of supply from others vers 45. It is therefore a Synecdoche so in the other so all are said to continue in the Apostles doctrine and prayers c. as before this Infants were not capable of and therein it is as in the other Synecdochicall for of other things mentioned they were capable and they were appliable to them they had things in common too and had supplies of clothing or food c. according to their need unlesse any will say that these persons spoken of had no children needing such supplies as well as themselves or else if they had yet their needs were not supplied so when they all eate their meate in severall houses c. what were the children shut out of doores if they had any or had none of those families any children in them Suppose they could not eate meate with such singlenesse of heart yet were they not of them that did eate their meate and were refreshed with them there were doubtlesse some hypocrites in heart amongst them and they could not eate with them with a single heart but were rather spots in their feasts of charitie as Judes phrase is Jude 12. yet by a Synecdoche all did eate with heart singlenesse in that some which were capable of the act doing did so among them all added were such as should bee saved too by a Synecdoche and in a Church sense yea their Infants some of them were such really and all of them in an externall and ecclesiasticall respect of covenant and Church interest they were capable of that adjunct albeit not of some others so were they capable of being added to the visible Church of Christians as they were of that true visible Church of the Jewes before And as all the Infants of covenant and inchurched Parents which stand right in the Church are also in that right inchoatively members of that Church albeit not perfectly And inchoative actuall membership of a true visible Church doth externally inright to the initiatory Church and Covenant seale of baptisme of which two these members children were enrighted as well as others then present And for further clearing of this way of application of some common acts to an assembly where are children which are not appliable to the whole company wholly see Acts 21. 5. bringing on the Apostle and his company is appliable to all those of Ephesus men women and children but that act of praying not so properly appliable to the little ones but rather to the growne persons present Weeping and swearing is applyed to the whole company assembled whereof many were children Ezra 10. 1. 5. compared yet proper to the growne part albeit the other of being assembled before the house of God c. were common as that sinne confessed on the behalfe of the whole assembly vers 2. was understood of the whole figuratively In respect of that part of the assembly which had so sinned which were not the children as is evident no nor all the growne ones but some onely amongst them as vers 18. 23 24 25. declare so Deut. 31. 11 12. men women and children must bee all gathered to have the Law read in their hearing that they may heare and learne and feare the Lord and observe all the words
in it bee so demonstrative a proof of such a conclusion It 's said that whosoever were perswaded and beleeved c. they were brought to the water and washed that proveth that all such persons were received to Baptisme but what Ergo none but such were baptized non sequitur It 's said Rom. 10. 13. Whosoever shall call upon the name of Lord shall bee saved therefore all such shall be saved True but not ergo none other shall bee saved For Mr. Blackwood grants Infants may bee saved One might better have concluded from Justins speech in that apology wee beleeve that God doth love those onely which imitate his virtues moderation love righteousnesse c. that they beleeved that God loved no Infants for they could not imitate God in justice and love c. yet I suppose Mr. Blackwood would bee loth to thinke so of those beleevers in Justins time And so when hee there saith But wee have learned that immortalitie scil of blessednesse is onely theirs who live honestly and holily before God therefore they had learned that the kingdome of glory belonged to no Infants For they could not live so here Mr. B. will not thinke that exclusive particle onely concluding against babes to whom hee holdeth the kingdome of glory doth belong and why then is a particle farre lesse exclusive so conclusive against Infants When Justin in that Apology commeth to speake of the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper hee saith unto which none is admitted but hee that doth beleeve our Doctrine having been washed in the Laver of regeneration unto the remission of sinnes c. but hee saith not so in the other none but such as beleeve what wee teach to bee true c. are washed or baptized c. Mr. B. might have considered that the occasion of this Apology was to take off aspersions cast upon growne Christians as for their babes they were not eyed by the adversaries as capable subjects of such crimes charged on their Parents Hence that speech in this Apology you when you heare mee expect a Kingdome rashly suspect it of some humane kingdome when wee speake it of the kingdome of God So they endeavour to make us daily infamous by objecting impious crimes against us and heinous things are divulged of us through the peoples tales of putting out light and then lying promiscuously together of devouring mans flesh c. and that at our sacred mysteries we promiscuously commit filthinesse c. So that it were impertinent to mention their religious way of devoting and offering up their children to God they were not accused no apology is needed for them but it 's meet to apologize onely for the persons accused and declare what manner of persons they are and how they devote themselves to higher and holier uses c. Let the reasons bee weighed which Justin here urged why they baptized persons adult and with him that urgeth those for reasons it enforceth more then probable grounds to convince that Baptisme of their Infants was in use For having spoken of that their being new borne as they were that is Baptized hee gives these two things as reasons Dixit enim Christus Nisi renati fueritis non intrabitis in regnum caelorum addes rationem ejus rei hanc accepimus ab Apostolis quoniam prima nativitas nec scientibus nec volentibus nobis ex complexu parentum humoreque genitali c. First the necessitie of regeneration in and by Baptisme as the ordinary way For so hee understands Iohn 3. 5. whether rightly or no I dispute not but to him it was so and that sufficeth Secondly the native pollution and originall sinne for that hee intends by nativitie received from their parents which are reasons valid as well for baptisme of Infants as growne ones too and with any to whom they are reasons for Baptisme and are the very reasons used by Origen Cyprian Ierom Ambrose Austin and others whose judgement was for baptisme of Infants as well as adult persons Yea but there is no mention made here of Infants baptisme no nor was it suitable to the occasion of the Apology as wee said before and yet it followeth not that it was not practised then because not expressed Mr. B. saith hee sets downe here the practise of the Church both for word prayer and administration of the Sacraments and that ex professo Yet Mr. B. may perceive that there is no mention of any doctrinall instructions held out at the baptizing of persons or at the administration of the Lords Supper occasioned by the joyning of new members to them at other times Afterwards indeed when hee commeth to speake of the manner of their carrying it on the Lords day hee mentioneth something that way but nothing in speaking of occasionall meetings for solemn closing with baptized persons at other times Yet I thinke Mr. B. would bee loth to conclude the word was not taught when the Sacraments were administred to any If he omit a thing which is professo hee was to mention what wonder if he passe over in silence a matter of which hee had not then occasion to speake Tertullian de corona militis saith almost as much in substance as Iustin and it is as well urged against Paedobaptisme because hee saith when wee come together to the water wee doe promise there to renounce the Devill c. Yet it is evident Baptisme of Infants was in use in his time why else doth hee condemne it and would not have their Susceptors runne hazzards by becomming sureties for them So that this is but a fallacious way of concluding à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Something more wee shall adde of Justin occasionally afterwards SECT II. RAbanus is the next witnesse to Propos 3. which saith the Catechisme which is the doctrine of faith must goe before baptisme c. hee was Anno 840. when none questions the constant use of Paedobaptisme and so the intent is not touching what is to goe before their baptisme but what was to precede the baptisme of Pagans or Jewes turned to the faith Rabanus de institutione Clericorum hath that passage of the 4th Carthage Councell Those which are to bee baptized are to give in their names and are to bee long under abstinence of Wine and Flesh c. and yet in the same place saith Whether Infants or young men come to the Sacrament of regeneration they no sooner approach to the Font of life but the uncleane spirit is driven away from them by the exorcising of the Priests c. These are no contraries but may very well stand together with Rabanus that those that are to bee baptized bee so prepared thereto scil if adult and yet Infants also not capable of such preparation may and are to bee baptized wherefore this is still but racking of Authors to make them speake that which they never intended SECT III. BAsil is the next Author brought in Contra Eunomium l. 3. saying
and second booke of the Epistles of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius they give grounds from Scripture to the contrary See l. 1. Epist Zwingl ad dilectos fratres I will now tell you from what grounds of Scripture I judge Infants to bee baptized c. and l. 2. in his Epist Bercktold and Francis Preachers at Berne hee saith peremptorily contra Scripturas ergo fecissent Apostoli si Infantibus negavissent baptismum the Apostles therefore had done contrary to Scriptures if they had denied baptisme to Infants See more of Oecolampadius his mind too herein in his Epist to Zwinglius and in that to the Preachers at Berne here therefore are two more witnesses abused in this Treatise CHAP. VI. HEre the Authors forget and mistake their owne witnesses names they are in such a hurry they bring in proofes that the Teachers according to the ancient Fathers right did so and so making the Fathers and those Teachers distinct as persons of whom the testimony is brought and as witnesses by whom and yet in the proofes the ancient Fathers themselves are the witnesses of what was done by those Teachers after them as Hilary Tertullian Arnobius Ambrose c. these might say what was in their time but cannot say what Teachers after them will doe or practise unlesse the Authors can by a spell play the Witch of Endors trick to fetch up old Samuel in his likenesse to speake after he was dead SECT I. BUt let us heare what any of them say if wee have not heard it before Hilary As for Hilaries testimony of his owne baptisme it 's not materiall wee mentioned him among the Authors instances of Adult persons baptized Proposition 3. as for his interpretation of baptizing in or upon the name that is upon confession of the beginners it 's as easily rejected as urged unlesse his grounds were shewed or were Scripture proofe SECT II. Ambrose THe next witnesse is Ambrose de spiritu Sancto l. 2. in our Sacrament there are three questions propounded and three confessions made without which three questions no man can bee washed if Mr. B's answer bee good to that part of Tertullian in the beginning of his booke de baptismo mentioning that a man without cost or pompe is let down into the water Observe saith Mr. B. that hee speakes of a man not of an Infant so I might as well say here hee speakes of a mans baptisme not of an Infants which then also was in use but that I feare some body would sit upon my skirts presently and aske mee whether an Infant be not sub genere isto subalterno hominis whether an Infant bee not homo and I ever thought before Mr. B. helped me with that distinction that when the Scripture saith it 's appointed to all men once to die c. Heb. 9. that Infants also were there counted men to die as well as others not to mention other places of Scripture or authors for the use of the word that way and I wonder Mr. B. when hee supposeth Rom. 5. 18. makes for his fancy of generall redemption of children whether of Pagans or Christians then Infants are men on whom the free gift commeth and yet here homo demissus in aquam in Tertullian must bee onely a growne man not Infants as if Infants now were not homo but this answer must bee better grounded or else I shall keepe my opinion that as an Infant is homo so Tertullians testimony there speaking indefinitely of any baptized person man or woman Infants youths or riper persons c. hee doth beare implicite testimony in that very place to Paedobaptisme as in his time But to returne to Ambrose I say that in Ambrose his time such confessions and questions were and Infants were baptized too that corruption being then in use of adding to Infants baptisme interrogations to them that brought them to baptisme which answered in their names and made confession in their stead For others were baptized in Ambrose his time and before then such as could personally answer or make confession yea and that it was Ambrose his judgement that it was the mind of God that others should bee baptized then could make such confessions witnesse that among other places of Ambrose which hee hath in his 5th Tom. in his Homilies upon Luke Jordan was turned back signifying the future mysteries of salvation in baptisme by which little ones in their Infancy are cleansed from the wickednesse of their natures namely in a Sacramentall way SECT III. BUt it will bee here objected that that custome of susceptors in Infants baptisme and the interrogations and questions that were put to them or others in their stead doth shew that of old none but growne persons were baptized upon confession of faith for that when Infants are baptized they must also make confession by others I answer if the very use of susceptors in baptisme were an argument of force against Infants baptisme of old it might as well bee of force against the baptisme of adult persons too upon the same ground as then in use since they also had of old their susceptors when Pagans desired to be baptized they had those which instructed them before hand and when they were baptized they presented them to baptisme and undertooke for them also Stories are plentifull in instances that after that corrupt custome of susceptors in baptisme came up adult persons had susceptors as well as Infants Epidophorus at Carthage of the Church of Fausty had the Deacon of the Church to bee his susceptor Magdeb. hist cent 5. c. 6. Justinian the Emperour was surety for Gethes King of the Herulians when baptized and divers others the Centurists mention as do other Historian nor doth it follow because such confessions and answers were made by such as brought Infants to bee baptized that therefore it argues onely adults used to bee of old baptized rather it argues that of old it was the doctrine of the Church that Infants were baptized principally in others right which offered them to baptisme namely their godly parents or such as tooke them as their owne adopted children to bring them up in Gods feare Hence even after the corrupt and abusive practise of susceptors came up Stories are not wanting to tell us of Christian parents which were susceptors to their owne children witnesse the Story mentioned by Fabian in his 5th book c. 114. Andovera wife to Chilpericus having a little daughter born in her husbands absence did by the perswasions of the Bishop Fredegrand become witnesse to it her self at its baptisme The Centurists mention the same Story out of Ganguinus Hence also Austin in his 14th Sermon upon the words of the Apostle speaking of Infants Baptisme saith if baptisme profit the baptized I demand whom it benefiteth the beleeving or the unbeleeving but God forbid I should say that Infants are not beleeving I have but now disputed it before Hee beleeveth in another which sinneth in another scil in the parents which