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
ratified their Covenant made in Baptisme and so were confirmed in their Church estate by imposition of hands which imposition of hands is therefore reckoned one of the six principles of the foundation of Christian faith Heb. 6.2 For it could not be a principle of faith it must be therefore a principle of the foundation of Church-estate and Order So Mr Cotton with much more before recited Chap. 7. Now let the world judge whether these mens readings and reasons or Mr Tombes his strained glosses give us rightlyer the meaning of Heb. 6.2 To Mr T. his second Answ We reply first That the learned men afore quoted gave us the sum of Antiquity * Tertul de Baptismo Dehinc manus imponitur per benedictionem c. Cyprian Ep. 3. 70. Nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in ecclesia baptizantur per praepositos ecclesiae offerantur per nostram orationem manus impositionem spiritum sanctum consequantur August Tract 6. in Joan. Epist Nuac quidem um loqui linguis quibus imponuntur manus post baptisnum tamenrevera accipere spiritum sanctum latenter alque invisibiliter infundi charitatem That there was an imposition of hands upon beleevers children to confirm that Baptisme they had received being Infants upon the confession of faith when grown up and to testifie the Churches receiving them now unto full membership and compleat fruition of all Church priviledges as to partake of the Lords Supper c. And that this the Text here calls The Doctrine of imposition of hands whereas the recitall of the Articles of faith by those that were past Infancy being children of Heathens fitting them for Baptism is by the Apostle precisely and distinctly from the other called The Doctrine of Baptismes And is not this a proof sufficient that the common and ordinary imposition of hands was used after the Baptisme of Infants onely 2. If Mr T. could prove out of Antiquity for this Text of Heb. 6.2 hath it not for him that a ceremony of imposing hands upon the riper aged children of unbeleeving parents when the said children made confession of their faith for Baptisine crept into the Church this doth not overthrow other Antiquity much lesse the Text of Scripture That the Doctrine of imposition of hands that is that imposing of hands belonged to beleevers children after they had been baptized But thirdly to answer Mr Tombes his Quotation of Tertullian about this De coronâ Militis c. 3. By the leave of Mr Tombes that doth if not scorn so score with the nail in his examen those Antiquities of the Fathers we usually alleadge we must tell the world first what a peece and place of Tertullian Mr T. hath here alleadged viz. such a one as wherein Tertullian disputes for receiving unwritten Traditions Quaeramus an traditio non scripta debeat recipi c. saith he Let us enquire Whether unwritten tradition be not to be received We shall deny it to be received if it were not prejudged or fore determined by the examples of other observations which without the instrument of any Scripture or Writing by the title of tradition onely we from thence defend under the patronage of custome Moreover to begin with Baptisme when we are about to enter into the water even there but also too a little afore in the Church under the hand of a Bishop or Prelate we bear witnesse or make serious protestation that we renounce the Devill Pomp and his Angels After this we are plunged or drencht or dipt three times answering something more then the Lord hath determined in the Gospell Then being * Suscepti which alludes to God-fathers Office Jun. Note on the place undertaken for we take a tast of the compound of milke and honey And from that day we abstain from washing in the common laver or place of washing for a whole weeke Thus far Mr Tombes his place of Tertullian Now let the Reader weigh all the circumstances of the place and judge whether Turtullian here alludes to any Scripture Authority or to any approved Antiquity 2. Such a place of Tertullian that doth not prove the thing Mr Tombes intends For he well knows that sub manu is a phrase that hath so many sences as it is no wayes certain that here sub manu under the hand signifies imposition of hands Haply it may rather signifie the Ministers lifting up of his hand in prayer As Pacianus hath it we obtain saith he in prayer pardon and the holy Spirit in Baptisme by the mouth and hand of the Antistes Touching Mr T. his quotation of Chamier Pans Cathol tom 4. l. 4. c. 11. Sect. 14. We give the world this account that we have run over and that twice that 14th Section with as many more following to the end of the Chapter as make up that 14th to be 59. And we finde but foure Quotations touching imposition of hands All which serve little to Mr T. his purpose The first is in Sect. 23. quoted out of Areopag and is this After questioning and profession he puts his hand upon his head and commands him being consigned to be enrolled or numbred among the Priests after other ceremonies puts him into a certain garment and annoints him with oyl were this suppositions Areopagite * Mitto Arcopagiram Hier. Eccles Clementem Rom. Constitut Apostol Nee libri isti corum sunt quibus tribuuntur vulgo Jo. Voss Thes Theol. Hist See also Perkins prepar to dem of the problem an author of credit and free from the ceremonious fooleries here mentioned yet the Baptisme here mentìoned is of one of ripe years at which time unbeleevers children had the first seal to whom this imposition of hands was applyed rather to make him a Priest as we conceive by the words then to accompany Baptisme The second is of the same hogge-sty Leo the first and rather against Mr Tombes If any saith he shall be baptized by an Heretick he is not to iterate that Sacrament but onely that to be conferred which was wanting that by Episcopall imposition of hands he may obtain the vertue of the holy Ghost Here imposition of hands follows baptisme at distance which is for us The third is out of Cyprian viz. It were to small purpose to impose hands on Hereticks to receive the holy Spirit unlesse they receive the Churches Baptisme Here imposition of hands presupposeth precedent Baptisme though in men of ripe years The fourth is out of a false-named * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a forged Eusebius as Chamier calls him in his first Decretall Know yee that those that have been baptized in the faith of the sacred Trinity we receive or undertake for by imposition of hands If this fellow be of any credit he is for us not against us Thus few doth Chamier quote touching imposition of hands because his design was chiefly to pursue the dispute of the other part of confirmation as he calls it
objects that if we read the passages themselves we cite EXAMEN and consider how they are brought in and how plain the expressions are against the Pelagians we would quickly conceive that those passages were put in after the Pelagian heresie was confuted by Hieronimus and Augustin who often tells us that the fathers afore that controversie arose did not speak plainly against the Pelagians And of all others Origen is most taxed as Pelagianizing We answer Animadver First for our parts we have read the places wee quote out of Origen with the coherence of the preceding and succeeding words as Mr T. may perceive by our touches of observations on the places Some hints there are wee confesse against some peice of Pelagianisme which might be conceived by some few in his time which others in after ages might confute plainly when borne named and grown up to a sturdy fellow Secondly for Origen to hint in some places against Pelagianism in others to Pelagianize a little is not such a contradiction as is not found in divers fathers that wrote much and struggled with contrary Errours as Augustin c. we thinke Mr T. himself clasheth sometimes against himselfe Thirdly however Origen in all the places constat sibi is the same man for Baptisme of Infants But Mr T. objects further that Vossius saith EXAMEN For Origen wee will the lesse contend because what we cited out of him is not extant in Greek Wee answer Animadver 1 Then we were best cast away almost all worthy Irenaeus because wee have but a little peice of him in Greek 2 That Mr T. quoted out of Origen for his turn is not extant in greek 3 Vossius shall heal the wound Mr T. gives by the hand of Vossius First saith Vossius Although some thinke Origens Commentaries on Levit. to be Cyrills yet they savour of Origens phrase and mistakes Secondly saith Voss You may read gemina this and his 14. Homilies on Luke as Twinnes that is they both speake alike to the same purpose of Infant-Baptisme which place on Luke Mr T. excepts not against Lastly EXAMEN Mr T objects that if Origens testimony be accepted yet he calls Infant-baptisme a Tradition and an Observation of the Church To this we have sufficiently answered a little afore in our quotations of those three places out of Origen Animadver that ORIGEN cannot mean unwritten Tradition or meer Custome See more after at our quotation of Augustin in which you have a full answer to Mr T. his note out of Aug. l. 10. c. 23. De Genesi The next witnesse is CYPRIAN CYPRIAN who flourished about the 248. yeare after Christ * Helvic and so also was in the second century 100 years or age after the first from the Apostles according to Mr T. his language others ** Bucholc put him higher to wit about 222. after Christ His testimony as Vossius notes for Infant-Baptisme in his time and higher is beyond all exception His words in his Epistle to Fidus in his third book and eighth Epistle * Alias Ep. 59. are these As concerning the cause of Infants which thou saidest ought not to be baptized being within the second or third day of their birth and that the law of ancient Circumcision ought to be regarded so that thou shouldest not think that one born should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day it seemed far otherwise to all in our councell We all of us that is in a Councell of 66 Bishops have judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denyed to no son of man or to none born of men And by and by after he saith There is among all whether Infants or those that are elder one equality of the divine gift And a little after that he addes For as God is no excepter of persons so nor of Ages seeing that he holds forth himselfe with an equall poysed evennesse Parem as some read a like patrem as others read a father to all for the attaining celestiall grace And a few lines after he hath these words If remission of sins be given to them that have more greivously sinned against God when afterward they have beleeved and so none of them is kept back from Baptisme and grace how much rather ought not an Infant to be prohibited and kept from baptisme who being lately born hath not sinned at all but as born of Adam according to the flesh he contracted the contagion of ancient death in his first nativity And therefore my dear brother this was our judgement in the Councell That from baptisme and the grace of God who is mercifull and bountifull and pittifull to all no man ought to be debarred So with much more Cyprian repeated by him again tom 2. l. de lapsis This Epist of Cypr. to Fidus is a Famous place saith Goulartius concerning the Baptisme of Infants against the Anabaptists And so we finde it accounted among the pious and Learned Ancients by their frequent and respective quotation of it * Cyril or Johannes Hierosolymit Catechis Mystag 1. Greg. Naz. Orat 3. in sanctum lavacrum Chrys Hom. ad Neâ—phyt Hom. in Gen. in Ps Ambros in Luc. Hierom. sub â—inem l. 3. Dialog contra Pelagian August Epist 28 ad Hiâ—â—â—n lib. 3. de pec merit remissic 7 8 9. Ubi totam fere hane Epistol citat lib. 2. contra Julian cap. 3. lib. 4 contra duas Epist Pelag. c. 8. And saith Vossius the judgement here given in about Infant Baptisme is so much the more to be esteemed in that it was the Decree of so famous a Councell and that the adversaries durst not deny it but onely doubted whether Baptisme should be given the eighth day And now give us leave to adde our observation namely That the learned Ancients did look to the Covenant made with Abraham whose seal was circumcision as to a ground of Infant Baptime as appears by Fidus his Argument from Circumcision onely he looked then too much at the circumstance of such a time of childhood as the Anabaptists now do at such a time of ripe years So that it appears by this and the Argument of Cyprian and of that Councell according to their light that that age held not Infant-Baptism from unwritten tradition as Mr T. asserts Now we must turn to Mr T. his EXAMEN EXAMEM Sect. 7. where he hath somewhat to say against most of the Fathers usually alleadged for Infant-Baptism and so against Cyprian 1. He Objects that though Cyprian â—e placed at 250 by Vsher or at 240 by Perkins and consequently though at 248 by us yet Tertullian was before him and counted his master Now in Tertullians time It appears saith Grotius in Mat. 19.14 there was nothing defined concerning the age in which they were to be baptized that were consecrated by their Parents to Christian Discipline because he disswader by so many reasons in his book
A VINDICATION OF BAPTIZING BELEEVERS INFANTS IN SOME ANIMADVERSIONS Upon Mr. TOMBES His EXERCITATIONS About Infant Baptisme As also upon his EXAMEN As touching the Antiquities and Authors by him alledged or contradicted that concern the same Humbly submitted to the judgement of all Candid Christians By NATHANAEL HOMES And Jesus called a little child and set him in the midst of them and said Except men be converted and become as little children yee shall not enter into the kingdome of heaven whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child the same is greatest in the kingdome of heaven And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which beleeve in me it were better for him that a milstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea Matth. 18.1 2 3 4 5 6. Published according to Order London printed by M. Simmons and are to be sold by Benjamin Allen at the signe of the Crown in Popes-head Alley 1646. TO THE READER DEdications of Books are to me a scruple The truth of God is lesse mine then a day or a place to dedicate to creatures and more able to defend it selfe then any thing on earth And Delarations in Epistles are in my opinion so curious a thing rightly to manage as that there is more hazard of their miscarrying then hope of doing good Yet seeing importunity will not be satisfied without an Epistle therefore thus Hearing of Mr. Tombes his book against Infants-Baptisme comming forth with such a mighty shout of acclamation though of some fitter to admire then to judge this made me in haste to see it if it might prove convincing upon my spirit But finding upon a conscientions weighing that it was not of strength to bereave the faithfull sonnes of Abraham of their right and hope to give the little ones of their tender bowels to the pledge of God the first seal annexed to the promise I am the God of thee thy seed Acts 2. Gen. 17. The promise is to you and your children But like a violent motion to be forced at first and languid towards the end I further considered it And having upon occasion of the question among my brethren then in order to be discussed found that I could fairly answer Mr. T. his arguments with abundant satisfaction to my selfe and some others but all that doubted could not at first hearing feel the weight of every passage I was partly occasioned hereby to give them my thoughts in print And the rather that I might heare the judgements of the Saints whether I had thought aright of the question And if not by friendly conference to cleare up to me the mind of God in it Mean while I could not but lament the untimely birth of Mr T. his Exercitation and his unnecessary falling in travell with it after at least six able brethren and about so many dayes by nervous disput ation had given him so much cause to doubt of his Tenet or at least a while to suspend it For the question about Infants-baptisme is yet rather a controversie of privat persons then of Churches these being most prudentially carefull now rather about the right form of a particular Church to which the administration of the first seale doth nothing contribute at least in the first instant of its generation Matth. 3. Acts 8. Acts 10. Acts 16. For many were baptized in the New Testament whose baptisme neither found them in nor formed them into any particular New-testament Church The Scripture is either contrary to or utterly silent concerning it Josh 5.4 c. Even as the Israelites while they were fourty years in the wildernesse without the administration of Circumcision all the circumcised saving a very few being dead are called a Church Acts 7.38 So that the supposed want of the due administration of the first Signe doth not unchurch a Church or prejudice the proper forme thereof But the insatisfactory calling of the Anabaptists-Administrators of their pretended better baptisme upon a former worseconceited-baptisme being either not extraordinarily called or not having the first Seale themselves or being Sebaptists that is self-baptizers or baptised with the old sort of Infant-baptisme in either of which they are most unlike to John THE BAPTIST hath justly caused many to hold off from them and many to fall away from them And many that are with them to be at a losse where to rest One Congregation at first adding to their Infani-baptisme the adult baptisme of sprinkling then not resting therein endeavoured to adde to that a dipping even to the breaking to peeces of their Congregation Since that the Minister first dipped himselfe Not contented therewith was after baptized by one that had onely his Infant-baptisme Thus doth Gods justice leave us to find nothing in an or dinance when we put too much upon an ordinance and from too much to fall to nothing but a crying out All Ordinances Ministeries c. are all polluted So that as before they could not tel where to end so now not where to begin to reform and so out of that pretence turn As they were in order Nothing Contrary to that unanswerable place Ephes 4. That Christ ascending left a Ministery or Ministeries Ephes 4.8 9 10 11 12. all or some by succession or new election or extraordinary mission still a constant supply of a Ministery for the work of the Ministery the perfecting of the Saints for the edifying of the body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ I was thus forward to put forth before others of my abler brethren not out of self-confidence the Lord knowes but beside mine owne private interest in my doubting friends partly from advantage of time in knowing some of Mr. T. his arguments and partly from the assault of them that gave me the first Alarme I sent forth this scattered forlorn hope scarce well rallied and arraied to my mind through haste to set the moveable popularity at a stand if it might be keep the passe and maintain the fight till better help should come in This though lesse then I hoped by reason of pressures of mine own businesse and slownesse of Presses I have attained And so I expect those worihy brethren that have perhaps more time and more parts and reading I am confident then my selfe to carry on the main Battalio and to maintain their ground with those Brigades wherein they are by name engaged For it would have been disorder if not presumption and prejudice to the cause for me to have anticipated them In that I have done as I was hopelesse to please all so unwilling justly to displease any saving in the very opinio in question And therefore let no ingenuous reader take offence either at
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
as he saith having been formerly larger I say who knows but Mr. T. and Mr. D. formerly have so thought and so done themselves or at least have not professed against it which now they dislike in others Therefore let me offer to Mr. T. and Mr. D. and others of their judgement these three considerations First who that hath eyes as they Revel 4. as well within as without may not arreign himself guilty of this encroachment of extending his practise beyond the rule In many practises he throws open all fences and turns them into common But if he be questioned by the weakest disputant he cannot he dares not justifie himself in his sins but confesseth his way is butted there and bounded here and all the rest trespasse against the line he ought to walk by Secondly who is that professor especially a Minister living in this Summer of the Gospel at this time of the assent of Reformation to our Pole that forgets how in the dark and stormy Winter he saw lesse and stumbled more Even many of the Antipaedobaptists whom we own as brethren if they count Non-baptizing of beleevers children a peece of further Reformation a spark of clearer light must of necessitie confesse that not long since they thought not they did not so why then should we insult over our brethrens failing or taunt them for setting neerer their meridian closer to the rule that instead of baptizing all children they now state the question that onely believers children ought to be baptized unlesse in some speciall cases of which after Thirdly though meerly that second nature custome and that whirlwinde of persecution did precipitate many of later times to baptize all Protestant professors children confessing Christ to be come in the flesh and justification to be rooted in his righteousnesse alone yet all Ministers did not the same upon the same principles But 1. They knew that very anciently as appears by Tertullian living ann Dom. 195. which was not long after St. John Helvic This Tertullian being alledged in this question by H.D. the Churches did not baptize the children of unbeleevers out of the Church without Sponsores or Susceptores undertakers which we call Witnesses who engaged themselves as parents to look to the Christian education of such children called Godfathers as if fathers under God or for godlinesse to see them trained up in sound Religion Tertullians words in his Treatise de Baptismo cap. 18. are these Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio baptismi utilior praecipue tamen circa parvulos Quid enim necesse est si non tamnecesse sponsores etiam periculo ingeri On which words Junius his note is this Tria hic distincti proponit Auctor quae si rectè intelligantur locus est sanctissimus Conditio personarum baptizandarum est quod sint in faedere sive grandiores sive parvuli Dispositio est quòd credant obsequantur Evangelio profiteanturque Aetate non qui sunt in faedere nam parvuli piorum liberi in faedere sunt sed qui profitentur fidem recognosci solent Quum itaque dicit praecipue tamen circa parvulos id de extraneorum non de faederatorum domesticorumque liberis opus est intelligi ut aetiologia sequente confirmatur Illud autem sr non tam necesse etiam sine injuriâ auctoris abesse potest Not to spend time in construing all this we now onely give you the summe of both in the point now in hand for we shall more largely speak to every particular afterwards That which they both say concerning witnesses to children that in these ancient times they were used for children whose parents were without and not of the faith not of the Church We speak not for the using of witnesses or godfathers c. in baptizing children as the wont was among us But Secondly that this ancient custome as ancient at least as Tertullian might possibly have some respect to the Scripture Gen. 17. according to Mr. Cottons observation His book of the way of the Churche in N. England pag. 115. Baptisme saith he may orderly be administred to the children of such parents as have professed their faith and repentance before the Church Or where either of the parents have made such profession Or it may be considered also whether the children may not be baptized where either the grandfather or grandmother have made such profession and are still living to undertake for the Christian education of the childe For it may be conceived where there is a stipulation of the covenant on Gods part and a restipulation on mans part So M. Grcenham also See his works where he saith the children of unbeleeving parents are within the covenant by virtue of their believing grandfathers Or else how is God the God of their seed to shew mercy to thousands of generations of them that love him there may be an obligation of the covenant on both parts Gen. 17.7 Or if these fail what hindereth but that if the parents will resigne their Infant to be educated in the house of any godly member of the Church the childe may be lawfully baptized in the right of its houshold governor according to the proportion of the Law Gen. 17 12 13. So far Mr. Cotton both his judgement and his grounds Now in imitation of this last clause in all likelihood were Witnesses used though abusively in baptizing the children of some unbelievers and strangers from the Church yet therefore we have not such cause to trample upon any of our brethren about their error in baptizing too many Infants seeing they erred with some antiquitie and some pretence of Scripture before they saw this light for which God must be glorified and not man prided The last thing Mr. T. objects in this Argument on Matth. 28.19 is that if this place doth not exclude all Infants from Baptisme then nor doth 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat exclude Infants from the Lords Supper saying by the like elusion that the speech of the Apostle is not exclusive Yea verily saith Mr. T. neither will the Argument be of force from the institution of the Supper Matth. 26.26 27. that believers onely are to be admitted to the Lords Supper We answer And first to that comparison of 1 Cor. 11.28 with Matth. 28.19 we reply two things First that there is expressed in 1 Cor. 11. an universall determinating terme singling out all communicants man by man that they must be able to examine themselves before they eat But there is no such determinating word about Baptisine in Matth. 28.19 For first we have already in severall places of our Animadversions shewed that there is no certaintie at all that the Greek word here must signifie to-disciple or make-disciples For first most learned men render it no more but teach And so the Syriack and Arabick Translations * In the best Translations of the French
T. yet he would be beleeved in his Exercitation 8 What is all this that Mr T. hath said to the point in hand For we alleadge not Fidus his Epistle to Cyprian but Cyprians to Fidus relating their judgement and reasons for Infant-baptisme of which afore largely and fully And now observe that Cyprian saith in the name of the rest in that his Epistle to Fidus that concerning that opinion That the footstep of an Infant in the first dayes of his birth is unclean and so not to be then baptized It seemed far otherwise to all of us in the Councell and then reasons against it 9 Hierom and Augustine did not so rely on Cyprian but that they had many reasons of their own out of scripture to prove Infant-baptisme of which after 3. Mr T. objects against Cyprians Epistle to Fidus EXAMEN Sect. 7. you saith Mr T. to Mr M. say Cyprian assures Fidus that by the unanimous consent of 66. BPP in a Councell baptisme was to be administred to Infants c. and not to be restrained to any time which is true saith Mr T. but you add saith he to Mr M. and proves it by such arguments as these They are under originall sinne they need pardon are capable of grace and mercy God regards not age But saith Mr T. the resolution of Cyprian with his colleagues is not so lightly to be passed over seeing the determination of this Councell as far as I can finde by search is the very spring head of Infant-baptisme To conceive it aright it is to be considered that you are mistaken about the proofe of their opinion the things you mention are not the proofe but are produced in answer to objections The proofe is but one unlesse you will make a proofe of that which is in the close of the Epistle which is That whereas none is to be kept from Baptisme and the grace of God much lesse new-borne Infants who in this respect do deserve * â—he words â—â—erentur de â—ight have â—in translated â—ore favouraâ—ly by Mr T. â—or 1. Mercor â—â—gnifies someâ—â—mes onely to â—â—et attain or 〈◊〉 receive 2. â—n opposition â—â—o merit Cypriâ—n saith nihilâ—liud faciunt â—ot agunt 3. â—e saith de â—pe nostra Now what can â—n Infant meâ—it of a man 4. There is a â—ifference beâ—ween mereri â—liquid and mereri de aliquo which latter oft signifies to owe to one As Infants owe more to Gods mercy 5. It is said Gods MERCY more of our ayd and of Gods mercy because in the beginning of their birth they presently crying and weeping do nothing but pray The onely proof is this the mercy and grace of God is to be denyed to none that are borne of man for the Lord saith in the Gospel that the son of man came not to destroy mens soules but to save them and therefore as much as in us lies if it may be no soul is to be lost and therefore all Infants at all times to be baptized Animad We answ That in much of all this Mr T. rather seems to pursue a man then the matter I shall rather pursue the matter then Mr T. for so doing Therefore I animadvert First the Matter is not of consequence whether there be one or two or three proofes Doubtlesse the ingenuous reader may see in that Epistle that Infant-baptism is argued for out of Scripture first and last in the middle according to the light of the times And let us blesse God for that of their records we have to shew us the practise of ancient Churches in many materiall points Had we lived in their times it is a question whether we should have seen as much as they did If we now see more its because we dwarfes are set upon the shoulders of those Gyants Secondly that Cyprians Epistle is not the spring-head of Infant-Baptisme First Because that Councell of which Cyprian speakes in that Epistle did not first coyne that opinion as meerly their opinion depending upon their Votes but as arguing it according to their Light out of the Scriptures 1. That it is a part of Gods favour that sent his Son to save and that is by Ordinances 2. The equalitie of Gods divine gift to all Infants and men as in Elisha his fetching the child to life 3 God is no exceptor of persons and so not of ages 4 That by that law which is now established spirituall circumcision is not to be hindred by the carnall circumcision that is as he had said afore in that Epistle by restraining baptisme to the eighth day and not under but to admit all that is of all ages and to count none unclean as Peter speaks Act. 10. with other Reasons there urged Secondly because that Fidus afore the advise of this Councell as it seems come was for baptisme of Infants no doubt from the ground of circumcision onely he stuck too much on the ceremonie of the eighth day Thirdly before Cyprian or that Councell were Justin Martyr Irenaeus Clem. Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen all for Infant-baptisme in many passages all which we have before translated alledged and discussed excepting Clem. Alexandrinus See in the margin after CLEM. ALEXAND whom we alledge by and by after this Therefore Mr. T. how ever it seem to you it cannot seem to us that the resolution of Cyprian with his Collegues was the spring-head of Infant-baptisme To the last clause therefore all Infants at all times to be baptized we shall speak to in our Answer to the next objection Secondly EXAMEN Sect. 7. Mr. T. objects against Cyprian out of that we have translated that his testimony conteins some grosse things as first that they thought baptizing giving Gods grace and the denying it the denying of grace Secondly they thought that the souls were lost that were not baptized Thirdly that therefore not onely Infants of believers but all Infants were to be baptized Whence Tossanus in his Synopsis notes this for Cyprians error that he taught that Infants were straight wayes to be baptized lest they perish because that the mercy of God is not to be denied them We answer 1. In generall If we should grant all this to be true Animadvers yet this doth not overthrow but that in Cyprians time the Churches held Infant-Baptisme and that is the main point in hand Secondly in particular we answer To the first particular we say that what error or hurt is it to say that baptisme gives grace instrumentally and that without warrant wittingly to deny baptisme is to deny Gods grace Even as it is said in the Scripture The word of life The washing of regeneration The bread we break is the communion of the body of Christ So on the contrary Where there is no vision the people perish Vnlesse we are born again of water and the Spirit we cannot enter into the kingdom of God All which are meant instrumentally and according to Gods oâ—â—inary dispensation allowing him his prerogative
of the youngest and learnedst and most orthodox and pious knew well the last generation in which they lived His words are very considerable in his tenth book De Genes ad literarum cap. 23. The custome saith he of our Mother the Church in baptizing little children is by no means to be despised nor altogether to be reputed superfluous nor by all means to be beleeved but that it was an Apostolicall tradition Where he means by Apostolicall tradition the Apostles Doctrine delivered brought down to us in the book of the New Testament by tradition or handing of it from one generation to another So to be his meaning is plain 1. Because Augustine in his dispute against the DONATISTS for Infant-baptisme Li. 4. de Bap. cap. 21. prove it from the Scriptures 2. Because in his first book De pecc mer. remiss cap. 26. saith thus Some of the PELAGIANS do grant under some notion that little children are to be baptized who cannot go against the Authority of the universall Church which without all doubt was delivered to them by the Lord Christ and his Apostles 3. In his tenth Sermon of the words of the Apostle speaking of the Baptisme of little children saith let no man whisper unto you strange Doctrines This the Church alwayes had alwayes held This it received from the Faith or Faithfulnesse of our Ancienters And this it keeps with perseverance to the end 4. These things to be most truly spoken by Augustine we doe know saith Vossius by this that the Pelagians some of them durst not deny them For Augustine writes in his second Booke against Coelestius and Pelagius that Coelestius himselfe in a booke which he put forth at Rome confessed in these words Infants are baptized into remission of sinnes according to the rule of the universall Church and according to the SENTENCE OF THE GOSPEL But observe his cunning in what sence he meant that Infants were baptized into remission of sinnes to wit into future remission if they lived to commit actuall finnes and thereby stood in need of pardon not into present remission of sinnes whiles Infants as not standing in need of pardon or else they that is Pelagius Coelestius and their Sect said onely in words that Infants were baptized into remission of sinnes but thought otherwise in their Principles they held This is plaine out of the Affrican Councell held under Boniface and Celestinus in the 77. Canon whereof it is thus Item placuit qui parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat c. that is It pleaseth the Counsell that whosoever denieth that little ones newly borne from the mothers wombe are to bee baptized or saith that they are baptized into remission of sinnes but they contract or draw nothing of originall sinne from Adam which need to be expiated by the laver of Regeneration whence it followes that by them the forme of Baptisme into remission of sinnes is not truly but falsly understood let him be Anathema Thus the said Counsell By the playster made by this Counsell you may perceive the disease of Pelagius c. And in the Epistle of the Councell of Carthage Anno 416. Bin. to Innocentius which is word for word the 90. among Augustines Epistles there is this mentioned that Pelagius and Coelestius deny the Baptisme of Infants because say they Infants perished not neither is there in them that that needs salvation or to be redeemed with so great a price for as much as in them is nothing vitiated nothing is held captive under the power of the Divell neither is it read that bloud was powred out for them unto remission of sinnes Albeit Coelestius in his Booke hath already confessed in the Church of Carthage that Infants also are redeemed by the Baptisme of Christ And then to explaine this how many and how or in what manner confessed this with Coelestius the following words fitly serve But many who are represented to us to be or to have been their Disciples doe not cease to affirme these evills whereby they endeavour by all the craft they can to overthrow the Fundamentalls of the Christian Faith So that if Pelagius and Coelestius be corrected or if they say they never thought those things and deny those writings to be theirs what or how many-soever they be that are brought against them yet is there not whereby to convince them of a lye So the Epistle of the Councell at Carthage Mr. T. EXAMEN Sect. 8. But Mr. T. hath many things to say against Augustine in his EXAMEN That the Authority of Augustine was it which carried the baptisme of Infants in the following ages almost without controul as may appear out of Walafridus Strabo placed by Vsher at the yeer 840. who in his book De rebus Ecclesiasticis chap. 26. having said That in the first times the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given to them onely who were come to that integrity of minde and body that they could know and understand and what profit was to be gotten in baptisme what is to be confessed and beleeved what lastly is to be observed by them that are new born in Christ confirmes it by Augustins own confession of himself continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptized But afterwards Christians understanding Originall sinne c. Ne perirent parvulisi sine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur statuerunt cos baptizari in remissionem peccatorum quod et S. Augustinus in libro de bapismo parvulorum ostendit Africana testantur Concilia aliorum Patrum documenta quamplurima And then adds how God-fathers and God-mothers were invented and addes one superstitious and impious consequent on it in these wordes Non autem debet Pater vel mater de fonte suam suscipere sobolem vt sit discretio inter spiritalem generationem carnalem Quod si casu evenerit non habebunt carnalis copule deinceps adinvicem consortium qui in communi filio compaternitatis spiritale vinculum susceperant To which I adde that Petrus Cluniacensis placed by Vsher at the yeare 1150. writing to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis who denyed Baptisme of Infants sayes of him that he did reject the Authority of the Latine Doctors being himselfe a Latine ignorant of Greeke and after having said recurrit ergo ad scripturas therefore he runnes to the Scriptures he alleageth the examples in the New Testament of Christs curing of persons at the request of others to prove Infants Baptisme by and then addes Quid vos ad ista Ecce non de Augustino sed de Evangelio protuli cui cum maxime vos credere dicatis aut aliorum fide alios tandem posse salvari concedite aut de Evangelio esse quae posui si potestis negate From these passages I gather that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for paedo-baptisme the authority of Augustine and the Latine Doctors So Peter de Bruis and Henricus appealed to the Scriptures and the Greeke
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
spare the Greeks or men of any other language But if perhaps they at least by meanes of your sober examination have escaped your peremptory sentence what is that to me So far forth as concerns the businesse in hand it little or nothing advantageth seeing I am onely a Latine I cannot use those testimonies of a strange tongue which I understand not whereby I may convert or convince you Because ye disdain to give credit to the holy learned Doctors of the Church I must return to the most pure fountain of all rivulets and witnesses are to be brought out of the sayings of the Evangelists Apostles and Prophets if neverthelesse you receive so much as them This is the onely likely place that I finde in all Cluniacensis his chapters and Treatises agaist De Bruis touching the point of paedobaptisme which I can imagine Mr T. should mean And in all this let the reader judge whether Mr T. his 3 suppositions in his Observation can be found but rather the contrary As 1. That Cluniacensis did not urge the Latine Doctors but expresly waved them And of Augustin particularly he saith in another place in arguing against De Bruis out of the Scriptures Eeâ—â— hoc non de Augustino sed de Evangelio protuli I have produced this not out of Augustine but out of the Gospel 2. That therefore Augustines authority is not advanced in this point by Cluniacensis against De Bruis 3. That De Bruis did not appeal to the Greek Church nor doth Cluniacensis charge it upon De Bruis that he the said Bruis being ignorant of the Greek did appeal to the Greek Church But as you heard in the translation of Cluniacensis That he the said Cluniacensis professed himself a meer Latine ignorant of the Greek For Cluniacensis makes a supposition that perhaps De Bruis and Heinricus might despise the Greek Church and other Churches as well as the Latine Or if perhaps they did not despise the Greeks yet Cluniacensis being a Latine could not urge them So also in the Translation afore And there is the lesse probability that Cluniacensis should charge De Bruis with appealing from the Latine Church to the Greek as if it sided with De Bruis in the point of Anabaptisme For Cluniacensis urgeth on his own part the Greek Church for Paedobaptisme against De Bruis in a generall historicall way thus Tota Gallia Hispania Germania Italia ac universa Europa a trecentis vel quingentis ferè annis nullum nisi in infantiâ baptizatum habuerit That is All France Spaine Germany Italy and all Europe hath not had any baptized for the 300. or 500. yeers but Infants All Europe containes Greece Continent and Islands And Cluniacensis wrote as Mr T. quotes out of Vsher about the yeer after Christ 1150. and so his 500. years reacheth up to 650 after Christ This passage of Cluniacensis comming to my eye as I read him I observed after that Mr T. should think that Cluniacensis charged De Bruis with appealing to the Greek Church as with him against Infant Baptisme When as Cluniacensis at most doth but intimate that perhaps De Bruis and Heinricus may not so peremptorily censure the Greek Doctors as they had the Latine However if they didor did not Cluniacensis was not skilled in Greek Doctors to quote and urge them to convert or convince De Bruis and his collegue which to me is an intimation that Cluniacensis had understood some how by Latine history or report that the Greek Doctors also were for Infant Bapiisme or else he would not have spoken by way of excuse that he was onely a Latine and not skill'd in the Greek thereby to convert or convince De Bruis in case he had appealed to them After the allegations aforesaid of Walafridus and Cluniacensis Mr T. goes on in the same Section of his EXAMEN to tell us a story EXAMEN sect 8. That the reason of Augustines authority was this The Pelagian heresie being generally condemned and Augustines workes being greatly esteemed as being the hammer of the Pelagians the following refuters of Pelagianisme namely Prosper Fulgentius c. the Councils that did condemne it as those of Carthage Arles Milevis c. did rest altogether on Augustines ARGUMENTS and often on his Wordes We answer that here Mr T. asserts much without any proofe Animadver and to what great purpose I know not But I must follow Mr T. Therefore we say It Augustines workes were greatly esteemed as the hammer of that detestable Heresy of the Pelagians then generally condemned as Mr T. confesseth I hope Mr T. dislikes not this that men should be famous for opposing an infamous heresie especially seeing by Mr T. his words Wicked Pelagianisme was as well generally condemned as hammered by Augustine who could do no lesse in faithfullnesse to the place and time he lived in against an heresie bolted forth just in his time when he began to bee famous And they that condemned the totall of Pelagianisme That men by their own free will can repell sinne and keepe the Commandements so apparent against Scripture as was no need for any to pin their faith on Augustines sleeve they could not but condemne that shredd of Pelagianisme See before in our Quotat of Hierom and the Council of Carthage and the 90. Ep. among Aug. Epistles That Infants need not be baptised into remission of sinnes as having none but if they must needs be baptized then they are only baptized into the Kingdome of heaven An apparent lye against the truth of Scripture That saith in Adam we all dyed who sinned not after th similitude of his transgression Rom. 5. And in sinne did my mother conceive mee Psal 51. with many more Scriptures which would have informed the Churches if Augustine had held his peace that Infants have sinne in them and are baptized into remission of sinnes or into nothing Or if the Churches had wanted prompting from learned men Cyprian Clem. Alexandrinus Hierom with many other ancient orthodox learned yea Mr T. his Walafridus would have held out so much if Augustin had been mute For Prosper its true he hath some verses on the Acts of the Councill of Carthage wherein being inflamed with an incomparable zeal against the Pelagian heresie he describes the convention of the Africans * Vide Notas in Concil Capthag Et Baron an 416. nu 4 5 6 7 8. But what is this to Prospers resting upon Augustine or if Prosper writes De Gratiâ libero arbitrio in defence of Augustine this shewes that he was rather an Advocate for then a Client to Augustine Therein Augustines workes depended on him not hee on them And if hee writes to Augustine in that not as from Augustine For Fulgentius I finde not that he doth quote Augustine in the main dispute touching Pelagianisme in his responsory book to Peter Deacon but often and aptly quotes the Scriptures In his bookes to Monimus touching piae destination
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
the holy Supper to the Disciples 2 Cornelius his and the Gaolers families after the gathering of Churches were not by that numbred to any particular Churches or thereby made particular Churches that we read Now that which exists afore or after a thing without that thing cannot be the forme of that thing 3 That which is common cannot be proper and peculiar But baptisme is common to make men onely visible Christians in generall Therefore it is not proper and peculiar to make them of this or that particular Church And therefore though godly men or their infants have been baptized yet the Churches think according to Scripture that there must be somwhat more expressed to make such to own this or that preaching officer to be their pastor or teacher whom they must obey in the Lord and have in singular respect for the works sake Heb. 13. And to cause that Minister to own them as his flock Act. 20. if he meane not to take upon him a power Apostolicall for latitude to extend to all baptized ones Nor can it be pretended that this Minister baptizing them doth make them of his congregation because the Confession of the Anabaptists h Their confession of faith Artic. 41. set forth by the seven brethren of their fraternities say That any preaching Disciples that are no particular Church Officers or pâ—rsons extraordinarily sent but as considered Disciples are designed by Châ—ist to dispence this Ordinance Which we look upon us as a second fault in discipline following upon the Anabaptists Baptisme For we find not that any baptized others but either they were extraordinary Officer as the Apostles or Evangelists Or else particular Churches Pastours or Teachers Nor is there any thing in the Scriptures alleaged in their Confession but to the same purpose we speak Divine reason also concurs with us For a Disciple as a Disciple is only a member of the universall visible Church And so he can conferre nothing but what hee hath And so bring his brother no further in subjection to Church Ordinances than are administred by the universall visible Church and so can never be censured â—in case of lapse unlesse the universall visible Church concur which can never be And so Church discipline falls to the ground 3 Anabaptists have in many ages admitted generally all that will take up their baptisme Epiphan Anaceph p. 408. E dit Lat. Basil Epiphanius shews us in the fore quoted place That they affirme that for a man to stray in some great sin is nothing God required nothing but that hee should be of their faith Augustine in his fourth booke against the Donatists complains and quotes Cyprian as condoling the same That many Corde in melius non mutato c. That many being not changed in heart that renounce the world in words not in deeds were baptized And in another place speaks of it as an error of some in those times Errant qui pâ—aeter delectum omnes ad baptismum admittunt They erre saith Augustine that admit all to baptisme without any choice or difference And one of the late Anabaptists in a book called the marke or character of the Beast sayth that any man upon confession of sin though hee manifest no signes of grace ought to be baptized Thus of faults in discipline 4 By Anabaptisme have been occasioned many unnecessary disputes 1 Whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to baptize signifies to dip to rantize or to sprinkle whereas they baptized in old time some in their beds a See afore or couches b Clinidia therefore dipped not them The baptismes of Tables Mar. 7.4 here the word cannot signifie dipping The Israelites are sayd to be baptized in the Cloud and the red Sea But they were but sprinkled in the Cloud and not dipped in the Sea 2 Whether those baptized by men erroneous in judgment ought to be re-baptized Aug. against the Donatists 3 Whether there be originall sinne in infants 4 Whether they have faith 5 How long they must stay ere they be baptized c Of these 3 last we heard afore severally upon other occasions whether till three years old or under or till foure years old or over or how long whether till as old as Adeodaâ—us who was 15 at his baptisme as some will or till they be 30 years old which was the age of Christ As some thought in Nazianzens time Thus I have given you a taste of the manner of M. T. his disputing in those foure Arguments by an easier retorting them If M. T. condemne these our arguments retorted of impertinencie or invalidity he must of necessity also condemne his own And for my part if he will doe so I am contented that these foure arguments on both sides should goe for blank and so to leave the dispute where we found it as no great matter being done on either side to argue for or against by producing the errors and mistakes of men which may be laid aside on either side and yet a truth be held by either Though I doe not hereby mean to give away the Question of the lawfulnesse of baptizing believers infants And therefore we goe on to give particular answers to M. T. his foure Arguments aforesaid CHAP. XVI TO M. T. his first particular Exercitat § 19. of Sureties in baptisme urged in the minor of his sixth Argument touching humane inventions occasioned by Infant Baptisme We answer Animad 1 That sureties are known to have beene in Tertullians time and two hundred yeeres after in Augustines time as we have touched in divers quotations afore Whence I infer only this that the tenet and practice of Infant-baptisme were held in ancient times 2 That by vertue of Abrahams power and Guardianship over his houshold all his male family had the first signe or seal As the family of Cornelius and the Gaoler had the Governours believing and being baptized And usually those sureties that brought children to Baptisme promised to see them brought up in the fear of God or to that effect Whence I infer though I am not in the least for sureties onely I would have M. T. speak justly of things as they are That the sporting of profession of faith which M. T. here abjects was rather in the sureties that performed not that they promised then in thing it self To M. T. his second particular thence Exercitat of Episcopall confirmation We answer Animad that wee have already declared much of the Patriarchs imposition of hands of Christs imposition of hands of the Apostles imposition of hands of Churches imposition of hands since the Apostles upon little ones and usually after the first seal So that there is not so much human-invention in imposition of hands on baptized persons as there was arrogancy in the Bishops to assume this peculiarly to themselves To M. T. his third particular there That the reformed union Exercitat by examination confession and subscription of the received doctrine
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
Baptisme is sound to be also against the authority of all the Scripture but the 4 Evangelist c 14. p. 161 Robert Lord Brook alledged by M. T. against Infant Baptisme produced by us for it c. 14. p. 194. Baptisme doth not exhibit one a member of a particular Church c. 13. p. 207 Of private Baptisme c. 18. p. 203 C THe multiforme phantasie the Anabaptists have touching the Covenant with Abraham c. 1. p. 2 Their conceits about the Covenant confuted c. 1. p. 2 3 4 A maine difference to be put between the inward efficacy and the outward form of administration of the signe of a Covenant c. p. 4 Children are reckoned with the parents c. 2. p. 8. The Soule an Angell in a body c. 2. p. 8 No Covenant of grace but is mixt in regard of signification of temporals as well as spiritualls c. 2. p. 12 The Covenant largely discussed c. 2. p. 17 18 c. why Melchisedech Lot and Iob are not Circumcised c. 3. p. 26 Churches not unchurched for want of the 1 Seal c. 3. p. 26. Col. 2.11.12 whether Baptisme succeeds in the roome of Circumcision largly discussed c. 3. p. 24. c Cofessions at Baptisme in Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles time nor high nor venterous for fear of persecution c. 7. p. 67 Cyprian Alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 14. p. 131 Cyprian Obiected against Ibid. p. 134. c. Cyprian Vindicated Ibid. p. 134 13â— c. Clemens Alexandrinns alledged for his Infant Baptisme c. 14. p. 143 Chry sostome alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 14. p. 148 Petrus Cluniacensis misquoted touching Infant Baptisme is rectified c. 14 p. 160 161 c. Of the Councils of Carthage touching Infant baptisme c. 14 p. 167 168 c. Of the Councils of Milevis touching Infant baptisme c. 14. p. 167 168 c. Of the Councils of Arles touching Infant baptisme c. 14. p. 167 168 c. The Covenant was looked upon by the Ancients as the ground of Infant baptisme contrary to M. T. his obiâ—ction c. 14. p. 177 Why Constantine the great was not baptized young c. 14. p. 184 185 Of Episcopall Confirmation c. 16 p. 210 Whether the Church Covenant be an human invention whether divine or civill And whether somewhat equivalent to it be not necessary for unâ—ting people into a particular Church c. 16. p 211 D MAtth. 28.19 Go teach is not rendred to Disciple or make Disciples by the Arabick Syriack and S. Mark or the exactest Latins c. 2 p. 78. or by the best translations of the N. Testament in French Dutch German Hebr. Another Syr. Ital. maâ—g Or by the holy Ghost Mar. 16 15. c. 11. p. 10â— The wide difference between the two words Matth. 28.19 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 2. p. 7 E WHat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies c. 5. p. 42. Text and margin Epiphanius alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 14. p. 145 Cluniacensis asserts that very few or no Gentiles have bin baptized but in Infancy in all Europe for 300 or 500 yeers afore him who himself lived 1150 after Christ c. 14. p. 165 Of the Baptisme of Infants of Excommunicates c. 19 216 F OF Federar and to be signed c. 〈◊〉 p. 20 21 c. Federall holinesse discussed c. 6. p. 47. c. Fulgentius is not led by August c. 14. p. 167 The forme of uniting a Church c. 16. p. 110 111 G GEn. 17. And Act 2.39 paralleled c. 2. p. 9 The mayn hinges of the Gospel move upon the Covenant with Abraham c. 14. p. 125 Gregory Nazianzen Alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 14. p. 139 Gregory Nazianzen Obiected against by H. D. 〈◊〉 14â— Gregory Nazianzen Cleered by us p. 141 Gregory Nazianzen Obiected against by M. T. p. 142 Gregory Nazianzen Vindicated by us p. 142 The Greeke Fathers and Churches obiected against touching Infant Baptisme and vindicated c. 14. p. 143 144 145. H. Grotius pretended to be against Infant Baptisme cleered to be abundantly for it c. 14. p. 145 146 147 148 Genuadius alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 14 p. 150. margin De Bruis doth not as M. T. instances appeal to the Greek Churches against Infant Baptisme c. 14. p. 105 H HIcronymus alledâ—ed and discussed touching imposition of Hands on them that had been baptized c. 10. p. 88 Hefychius alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 14. p. 144 Hieronymus alledged for Infant Baptismâ— c. 14. p. 149. I IMposition of hands when and to whom applyed c. 7. p. 58 59 60. c. more c. 10. p. 63 c. It supposeth Baptisme c. 7. p. 66 Of Imposit on of hands out of Tertullian and Ierom c. 10. p. 86 87 88 89 Iustin Maâ—tyr and bee under that name Alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 13. p. 110 Iustin Maâ—tyr and bee under that name Contradicted by M. T. Ibid p. 110. Iustin Maâ—tyr and bee under that name Vindicated by us Ibid. p. 111 Irenzus Alleged for Infant baptisme c. 13 p. 115 116. Irenzus Contradicted by M. T. Ib. p. 118 Irenzus Vindicated by us Ibid. p. 119 c. Of the Baptizing of the Infants of Excommunicates c. 1 p. 9. 216. Of the Baptizing of the Infants of Apostates c. 1 p. 9 216. Of the Baptizing of the Infants Of believing Grand parents the next being unbelievers c. 1 p. 9 216. Infants may have saving grace confessed by the Anabaptists c. 21. p. 224 K M. K. answered that Baptisme is not that form or forming of a particular Church c. 15. p. 207 L LVdovicus Vives alledged answered about Infant Baptisme See Vives M What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie whether they differ c. 5. p. 42 Matrimoniall and Federall holinesse discussed c. 6. p 47. c. N GReg. Nazianzen alledged and cleered for Infant baptism c. 14. p. 139 140 c The Neocaesarian Synod alledged and cleered touching Infant baptisme c. 14. p. 146 The Fathers opinion of the necessity of Infant baptism cleered c. 14. p. 178. and c. 17 p. 212 O ORigen Alledged for Infant baptisme c. 14.127.128 Obiected against p. 129 Vindicated p. 129-Orig alledged by M. T. to prove Infant baptisme to be a Tradition c. 14. p. 182-Vindicated by us Ibid. p. 182 P THe Anabaptist as much a Proteus as the Paedobaptist c. 1. p. 2 The priviledges of the O. and N. Testament compared c. 4. p. 37 38 The difference between polliceri and promittere c. 5. p. 42. margin The cunning of the Pelagians opposing Infant baptisme c. 14. p. 149 The many Fathers that wrote for Infant baptisme afore the rise of Pelagianisme c. 14 p. 148 The many that wrote after the rise of Pelagianisme and yet long afore Walafridus c. 14 p. 150 Prosper is not led by Augustine c. 14. p. 166 The most excellent letter of M. Philpot the Martyr against Anabaptisme and where to be found c 20. p. 218. Q WHether the Questions ad Authodoxos be Iustin Martyrs or whose they are and of what antiquity and authority c 12. p 110,111,112,113 R MAster Daniel Rogers alleadged by M. T. against Infant Baptisme is produced by us as for it c. 14. p. 196 Of Robert Lord Brooks in like manner ibid. p. 194 S THe Seed of Abraham distinguished c. 2. p. 15 16 M. T. would have Churches subiect to Nationall Synods without adding any limitation yet disputes against the baptizing of infants as to carry it by argument what ever Synods should determine c. 9. p. 78 The mention in ancients of giving the Lords Supper to Infants 〈◊〉 c 14. p. 188 189 Of Sureties used in Baptisme their antiquity the rise the seeming ground c. 16. p. 210 T HOw the N. Testament quotations out of the Old hold analogy c. 3. p. 26 Tertullian de Corona Militis alledged and discussed touching imposition of hands at Baptisme c. 10. p. 86 Tertul. lib. de Anima Alledged for Infant baptisme c. 13. p. 121 Tertul. lib. de Anima Vossius his sence upon him Ibid. 122 Tertul. lib. de Anima Iunius his Notes upon him Ibid. p. 122 Theodoret alledged for Infant baptism c. 14 p. 150-why the Emp. Theodosius Magnus was not baptized till at mans estate c. 14. p. 187 V LVdovicus Vives urged for adult baptisme and answered c. 9. p 81 82 Walafridus Strabo alledged by M. T. for adult baptisme is answered by Vossius c. 13 p. 109 Vossius intimated for Infant baptisme but is shewed to be for it Ibid. p. 109 Of the union of members into a particular Church c. 16. p. 210 W OF Witnesses or sureties at Baptisme Their antiquity what mistake might bring them in c. 11. p. 101 102 Walafridus Strabo alledged for adult baptisme answered c. 13. p. 109. more largely c. 14. p. 158. Of Womens baptizing c. 18. p. 203 FINIS
Church Now the reason of Augustines authority was this the Pelagian heresie being generally condemned and Augustines workes being greatly esteemed as being the hammer of the Pelagians the following refuters of Pelagianisme Prosper Fulgentius c. the Councells that did condemne it as those of Carthage Arles Milevis c. did rest altogether on Augustines arguments and often on his words and Augustine in time was accounted one of the four Doctors of the Church esteemed like the four Evangelists so that his opinion was the rule of the Churches Judgement and the schools determination as to the great hurt of Gods Church Luther and others have been of late Now Augustine did very much insist on this Argument to prove originall sinne because Infanâ—s were baptized for remission of sinnes and therefore in the Councill of Milevis he was adjudged accursed that did deny it But for my part I value Augustines judgement just at so much as his proofs and reasons weigh which how light they are you may conceive August tom 1. Confess lib. 1. c. 11. Signabar signo crucisejus condiebar ejus sale jam inde ab utero matris meae quae multuâ—â— speravit in te And then follows how being young and falling sick he desired and his mother thought to have him baptized but upon his recovery it was deferred First In that whereas he makes it so Universall a tradition his owne baptisme not till above thirty though educated as a Christian by his mother Monica the Baptisme of his sonne Adeodatus at 15. of his friend Alipius if there were no more were enough to prove that this custome of baptizing infants was not so received as that the Church thought necessary that all children of Christians by profession should be baptized in their infancy And though I conceive with Grotius annot in Matth. 19.14 that baptisme of Infants was much more frequented and with greater opinion of necessity in Africa then in Asia or other parts of the world for saith he in the Councells you cannot finde ancienter mention of that custome then the Councell of Carthage Yet I doe very much question whether they did in Africa even in Augustines time baptize children except in danger of death or for the health of body or such like reason I do not finde that they held that Infants must be baptized out of such cases for it is cleare out of sundry of Augustines Tracts as particularly tract 11. in Johan that the order held of distinguishing the Catechumeni and baptized and the use of Catechizing afore baptisme still continued yea and a great while after insomuch that when Petrus Cluniacensis disputed against Peter de Bruis he said only that there had been none but Infants baptized for 300 yeares or almost 500 years in Gallia Spaine Germany Italy and all Europe and it seemes he denyed not the baptizing of growne persons in Asia still whence I collect that even in the Latine Church after Augustines dayes in sundry ages the baptizing of persons of growne age did continue as well as baptizing of infants till the great darkenesse that over-spred the Westerne Churches spoyled by Barbarous Nations destitute of learned men and ruled by ambitious and unlearned Popes when there were none to Catechize and therefore they baptized whole Countries upon the baptisme of the King of that Country though both Prince and people knew little or nothing of Christianity but were in respect of manners and knowledge Pagans still which hath been the great cause of the upholding of Papacie and corrupting of Christian Churches I meane this great corruption of baptizing making Christians giving Christendome as it is called afore ever persons were taught what Christianity was or if they were taught any thing it was onely the ceremonies and rites of the Church as they called them 2. You may conceive how light Augustine's judgement was Rivet tract de Patrum authâ—ritate c. 9. Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudic at Infantes sine badtismo morientes by considering the ground upon which Augustine held and urged the baptisme of Infants so vehemently which was as all know that read his workes the opinion he had That without baptism Infants must be damned by reason of originall sinne which is not taken away but by baptisme yea though he wanted baptisme out of necessity urging those places Joh. 3.5 Rom. 5.12 continually in his disputes against the Pelagians particularly tom 7. de natura gratia c. 8. And tom 2. ep 28. he saith Item quisquis dixerit quod in Christo vivificabuntur etiam parvuli qui sine Sacramenti ejus participatione de vita exeunt hic profecto contra Apostolicam praedicationem venit totam condemnat ecclesiam And in the close of the Epistle calls it robustissimam fundatissimam sidem qua Christi ecclesia nec parvulos homines recentissime natos a damnatione credit nisi per gratiam domini Christi quam in suis Sacramentis commendavit posse liberari And this Perkins in his Probleme proves was the opinion of Ambrose and many more And hence as Aquinas so Bellarmine proves baptisme of Infants from Joh. 3.5 And this hath been still the principall ground The ground that you go on that the covenant of grace belongs to beleevers and their seed I cannot find amongst the Ancients Yea as you may perceive out of Perkins in the place alleadged although Ambrose and Augustine in his 4. book de Baptismo contra Donatistas c. 22 yeilded that either Martyrdome or the desire of Baptisme might supply the defect of Baptisme and some of the School-men Biel Cajetan Gerson do allow the desire and prayer of parents for children in the wombe in stead of Baptisme Yet we find no remedy allowed by them but actuall baptisme for children borne into the world So strictly did Augustine and the Ancients urge the necessity of Baptisme for Infants born 3. You may consider that Augustine held a like necessity of Infants receiving the Lords supper from the words John 6.53 as is plainly expressed by him lib. 1. de peccat merit remis c. 20. And accordingly as in Cyprians tim the Communion was given to Infants as appears by the story which he relates of himselfe giving the Communion to an Infant in his book de lapsis mentioned by August epist 23. So it is confessed by Maldonat on Joh. 6. that Innocentius the first Bishop of Rome held it necessary for Infants and that this opinion and practise continued about 600 years in the Church though it be now rejected by the Romane Church in the Councell of Trent 4. You may consider that Augustine held such a certainty of obtaining regeneration by Baptisme that not onely he puts usually regeneration for Baptisme but also he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants though they that brought them did not bring them with that faith that they might be regenerated by spirituall grace to eternall life but because by Baptisme they thought to