T. well knows subordinate things are not contrary Christ regenerates therefore doth he not do it by his Ordinances Word Baptisme c We have heard afore that though Christ be the Author of our salvation yet it is said we are born again by water and the Spirit And that for the conjunction of the signe and thing signified the thing signified is called by the name of the signe We adde Ephes 5.26.1 Pet. 1.23 where it is said that we are sanctified by the washing of water by the Word And we are born again by the Word of God and yet we know Christ by his Spirit is the Author of these 3 Others of the approved Ancients as Commentators on Irenaeus call baptisme by the name of regeneration Nazianzen cals Baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the laver of regeneration or of the new-birth Nazianz. Orat. 402. in Sanct. Bapt. Augustine saith As by the first man men are born in sin and death so by Christ renascuntur they are born again in or into righteousnesse and eternall life in or through baptisme Aug. lib. de Bapt. hab Cons Ambrose saith God the omnipotent Father who hath regenerated thee of water and the holy Spirit Ambros de Sacram. Hieronimus The bloody bodies of Infants are washed as soon as they are born so the spirituall generation stands in need of the saving laver Hieron lib. 4. Ezek. ca. 16. More might be alledged but these enough to clear the businesse in hand that Irenaeus meant by being born-again or regenerated Baptisme But Mr. T. objects Mr. T. EXAMEN Sect. 4. p. 7. that Irenaeus saith Christ was fifty yeers old aâ— he had received it from those that conversed with John the Apostle and thereby Mr. Tombes would blemish Irenaeus his testimonie We answer Animad First men have their mistakes else they were not men but as Angels Secondly Mr. T. referred us to far worse Authors full of superstitions in Scham before And his Ludovicus Vives and his Walafridus we and Vossius too have noted before for their grosse expressions and mistakes Thirdly which is mainly to the point Irenaeus saith Infants may be born again that is baptized as from himself though he reports the whole age of Christ from others who if they wrote his age by ciphers in after-times fifty might easily be mistaken for thirty The third and last Author we will urge from this first age TERTVLLIAN or first hundred yeers or century next following the Apostles time is Tertullian Whom Helvicus puts in the latter end of the age afore said namely in the yeer after Christ 195. which was as about the 95 yeer after the death of John the Evangelist But the same Helvicus saith this of him put in that yeer out of Eusebius and Hieron That he put forth his book of Praescriptions and that he was the third Latin Writer And Bucholcerus mentions him as famous about the yeer after Christ 208 that is 108. after St. John that is but about thirteen yeers after the time set down by Helvicus For he saith that about that time Hieron in Catalogo Cyprian as Hieron testifies did ascribe so much to Tertullians writings that when he called for one of his Authors or Writers he would say Da Magistrum that is Give me my Master when he meant Tertullian Therefore he wrote divers yeers afore The words of Tertullian to the point in hand of Infant-Baptisme Lib. de Anim. cap. 39. 40. are these Hinc enim Apâ—st c. that is For hence also the Apostle affirmeth that of either sex sanctified are procreated those that are holy as by the prerogative of SEED so by the discipline or rule of institution But they were born unclean as if by this neverthelesse he would have it understood that the children of beleevers are designatos the designed ones of holinesse and thereby also of salvation that these pledges of hope might patronage those marriages which he had judged to be kept undissolved Otherwise he had minded the Lords determination Vnlesse one be born of water and of the Spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdome of God that is He shall not be holy So every soul is counted to be in Adam till he be recounted to be in Christ and so long to be impure till he be recounted Thus Tertullian Whence note first by the way how the opinion of Antiquity touching that place 1 Cor. 7.14 is contrary to Mr. Tombes his opinion Secondly directly to the point in hand of the Baptisme of the children of beleevers he holds forth these Notions First the birthright of beleevers Infants the parents and children being both under that promise I am the God of thee and thy seed They are saith Tertullian by the Sanctification of one of the Parents procreated holy partly by the praerogative of the SEED I am the God of thee beleeving Abraham and of thy seed Gen. 17.7 partly by the discipline of Institution THEREFORE thou shalt keep my Covenant to give the first seal to every male of thy seed Gen. 17.9 Or Act. 2. The promise is to you and you being called to your children also So that Tertullian meanes that the children of beleevers are reputatively and federally holy Which is the more plain by that which follows of counted in Adam and recounted in Christ Secondly The capacity of children of grace and Salvation and consequently of the seal for the deeds and their seals follow the right of the inheritance so all along the Scripture as we have shewed in part I say Tertullian shews childrens capacity of grace 1. In mentioning their being holy For it s in vain to talke of accounting holy if none may be holy yea therefore God will have beleevers children indefinitly accounted holy because he hath made some holy in their childhood Isaac Iacob Samuel Iohn Baptist those Mar. 10. c. 2. In mentioning that place Iohn 3.5 in relation to children Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit c. From all which we may perceive that Tertullian grounds Infant-Baptisme upon Scripture not upon unwritten Tradition Nor is it my opinion onely that this place of Tertullian is for Infant-baptisme but of learned Vossius too whom Mr. T. so oft quotes with respect For Vossius by this place proves that it was the mind of Tertullian in that noted place of Chap. 18. H. D. Mr T. in his 10th Argument of his book De Baptismo That Infants should be Baptized which some alleadge against Infant-baptism but is indeed for it Tertullians words are these Itaeque pro cujusque personae c. Therefore according to every persons condition disposition and age the delay of baptisme is more profitable but especially concerning little children For what necessity is there * Those words between Junius saith may be left out Mr T. in his 10th Argument leaves them out But in the best Editions of Tertullian they are in Vossius takes them in
expresse the analogie of circumcision to the thing signified but onely a word added touching the making circumcision effectuall and imports onely that Christ is the effect of all Sacraments he is he that must establish the Covenant in all its promises and seals In him are all the promises yea and amen 2 Cor. 1. He is the seed to whom and in whom promises were made and to be made firm Galat. 3.16 It was not all Isaacs seed that could establish the Covenant but Christ Nor did Christ more establish as Isaacs seed then as Abrahams seed spiritually Gen. 12.3 Gen. 17.7 and Gal. 3.8 Thirdly that whereas afore Mr. T. said p. 4. of his Exercitat that Baptisme assures Christ to be already come to which we answered that no such thing appeared in the analogie of water nor in the form of administration to wit I baptise thee in the Name of the Father c. nor in the use many being baptized afore Christ came 1 Pet. 3.21 1 Cor. 10.1 2 c. many before Christ came to act his mediatorship of doctrine passion resurrection his incarnation onely preparing him Psal 40.6 mine eares hast thou opened or bored Hebr. 10.5 A body hast thou prepared me Now Mr. T. speaks more warily Baptisme points at the incarnation death c. of Christ Well and how doth it point at the incarnation and death of Christ more then circumcision Did not circumcision signifie Christ to be born according to the flesh of one circumcised Did not cutting off of the fore-skin and drawing blood as well point at death as ordinary afflictions are said to kill all the day long Rom. 8 Sure that bloody Sacrament did as much if not more point at Christs passion as a little being under the water and up again did in baptisme But to signifie time to come or time past that was onely implyed in the time of administration if either Sacrament administred afore Christs coming then it pointed at Christ to come If after his coming then Christ come Secondly Exercit. p. 6. saith Mr. T. circumcision was a signe that the Israelites were a people separated from all nations Rom. 3.1 But baptisme signifieth that all are one in Christ Gal. 3.28 Answ And doth not baptisme as much separate all the spirituall seed of Abraham and their children from all the Nations unbaptized as circumcision did Israel and the proselytes out of every Nation from the uncircumcised For that is the difference Matth. 28. Go teach all nations baptizing them If nations do not receive this teaching and baptizing there is the difference that men can put And it is as wide as usually circumcision did put the Israelites generally being evill and very oft idolatrous And it is a question to me wishly looking on that place Rom. 3.1 2 whether their keeping the oracles of God is not put if not as the speciall difference Compare Psal 147. last yet as the equall difference with circumcision the Turks c. circumcise but have not the oracles of God and then what more is conferred on circumcision then on baptisme The Word must go before and along with a Sacrament or else it will appear rather a mixture of heathenish superstition then a distinction And for baptisme it doth indeed signifie that all we Gentiles with the Jews that are baptized are all one in Christ as before circumcision signified that all Jews with the Gentiles proselytes that were circumcised were one in Christ But me thinks the text Gal. 3.28 speaks of Christ as making us all one If of baptisme then of baptisme as made an effectuall means to put into Christ and then effectuall preaching is as well a means and so no speciall thing is put to advance baptisme above doctrine Thirdly saith he circumcision signified that Moses law was to be observed Exercit. p. 6. Gal. 5.3 But baptisme doth signifie that Moses law is made void and the doctrine of Christ to be reteined Act. 10.37 Answ This seemes to import some difference at some time and in the shell but not alwayes not any in the kernell For was not the doctine of Christ the doctrine of Moses in substance Iohn 5.46 47 was not baptisme as wee shewed afore instituted and administred Mat. 3. c. whiles Circumcision was not of right to end till Christ's death three yeares and a halfe after So that though in Acts. 10. Christ being ascended the administration of baptisme by help of that time might imply Moses law in the shell was to be done away yet at other times afore Christ's death it could not signifie that Moses law is made voyde signanter precisely as Mr. T. speakes To that Gal. 5.3 we say that as Circumcision did signifie that Moses his law was to be kept so the Passeover and any other ceremonies a paribus from the like reason that a beleiving Galathian would observe one Ceremony out of conscience ought likewise observe the rest So that the Apostle mentions Circumcision only as being to the question then in hand And for Acts 10.37 of baptisme wee say that whiles it might any way hint that Moseâ— law in the shell was to be done away it tyed to the observation of it in the substance of gospel meaning So in that Acts. 10.37 compare with Iohn 5. two last Mat. 28. v. 20. when teaching them to observe all that Christ commanded followed baptisme Fourthly saith Mr. T. Circumcision did signe Canaan Exercit. p. 6. Baptisme eternall life This we have answered to afore Animadver That Circumcision did sign Canaan as it was a type of heaven Heb. 4. As baptisme and the holy Supper under materiall elements signifie and give us things spirituall and eternall All this while I cannot see such a materiall difference between Circumcision and Baptisme in the least to deface the analogie and semblance between the administration of the one and the other to beleivers and their Infants or to interrupt that consequence from the one to the other What ever may be urged against the incapacity of children to be Baptized may as well be argued against Circumcision By this that hath been answered candid men may see what reason Mr. T. hath to deny major or consequence or minor If this argument be not restrainedly understood an egge is layd Exercit. p. 6. out of which manifest Iudaisme may be hatched No feare if we argue as the Apostle argues Animadver who Collofians 2 11. 12. as wee have cleered wee hope puts Baptisme in the roome of Circumcision If wee doe not put those things in the place one of another which God puts in though but by practice and example without looking for a new institution or command there being a difference onely of circumstances I am bold to say an egge is laid out of which may be hatched Antisabbatarianisme a nulling of the Lords day as is frequent upon this very consequence among the Anabaptists and Exemption of women from the holy Supper with many the like
T. that if it were so manifest as you speak you should find nothing in Eusebius for Infant-baptisme nor in Ignatius nor in Clemen Alexandrinus nor in Athanasius nor in Epiphanius Animadvers We answer 1. Mr. T. brings but one place out of one Origen to prove as he pretends that Infant-baptisme is but a tradition We bring foure for the contrary Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen and Nazianzen and yet these are not sufficient with him unlesse we hear Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus c. say so too 2 A non dicto and non factum not valet consequentia Many things have been done in the Church which those Authors may not mention 3 They may speak of Infant-baptisme in some of their works which long since were lost 4 Mr. T. saith that YOV should find nothing in Eusebius Ignatius c. for Infant-baptisme And we say it is wonder Mr. T. did find nothing in them to the contrary in his 7 or 8 moneths time to write his EXAMEN which we not having much above 8 weeks for our Answer and so have not time to ransack every book But fiftly CLEM. ALEXAN li. 3. Strâ—m p. 461. He flourished about the yeer of Christ 193. Buchol Helvic this we cast our eye upon in Clem. Alexand which makes me think somewhat might be found in him towards Infant-baptism if we had time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Neither doth Gods divine providence now likewise command 〈◊〉 of old that he that hath risen from the conjugall bed should be washed For the Lord doth not necessarily take off from procreation of children those that are believers whom he hath by one Baptisme washed in all respects according to his wont who by one baptisme comprehends all the Baptismes of Moses Therefore the Law of God by carnall generation foretelling our regeneration did for the seminall facultie of generation hold forth baptisme Vide Graecum textum not loathing humane generation Thus Clem. Alex. with much more which for haste we cannot stand to translate Give us leave to adde a note or two 1. Let me observe with Hervet Aurelianus that this place relates to Levit. 15 16 17 18. If any mans seed of copulation shall go out from him then he shall wash all his flesh in water and be unclean untill the evening And every garment and every skin whereon is the seed of copulation shall be washed with water and be unclean untill the Even The woman also with whom the man shall lye with seed of copulation they shall both bathe themselves in water and be unclean untill the even This is the LAW and these are the BAPTISMES of MOSES of which Clem. Alexandrinus speaks here HESYCHIVS 2. Take the note of ancient and learned Hesychius * He flourished about 402d yeer after Christ Helvic on this place which is this The Lord himself saith he sheweth that mankinde must have the necessary regeneration of baptisme saying Vnlesse a man be born again of water and the holy Spirit he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven Joh. 3. The untowardnasse of which filth in us was transfused from Adam Whence David saith he was born in iniquity and conceived in sin Psal 51. not accusing his mother but intimating his sinfulnesse which ran down from his progenitors And now the Law-maker commanded him out of whom proceedeth the seed of copulation that is â—e that hath effused his seed for procreation of children yea also the woman that hath received it to wash the body because she hath received it by which is described this whole temple of ours that is the whole man consisting of soul and body In that Adam was made filthy by disobedience he made his seed to be filthy and so necessarily the body to be filthy which is of the seed in which he is unclean untill the Even that is the end of the time wherein Christ coming shews the water whereby our generation should be cleansed And that till then we remained unclean is proved from thence that they also that had not yet sinned actually that is were in their tender age have necessarily the seal of baptisme lest by death preventing they dye unclean c. Thus Hesychius with much more Thirdly If it pleaseth Mr. T. he may read Gentinus Hervetâ—â— Aurelianus his note on the place of Clem. Alexandrinus who is carefull to set forth the sence of Clemens though we heed not all his owne excursions Therefore Clem. Alexandrinus saith Gent. Hervet Anrel intimateth that many were the Baptismes of Moses anciently which were figures of our regeneration by Baptisme by which originall sin is washed which one onely Baptisme indeed is necessary for by it it is that the seed is no more uncleane though after to be further cleansed So Gent. Herv with much more Thus you have a touch out of one of Mr. T. his five Gr. Authors which he saith have nothing of Infant-Baptisme Wee will give you another touch out of another of his silent Authors as Mr. T. intimates and so dismisse the rest as not having all the Authors nor time to go looke after them EPIPHANIVS contra Haeres 30. p. 52. Epiphanius in his second Booke 2. Tom. contr Haeres speaking before of the Circumcision of Christ that he was circumcised to dissolve or abrogate that Circumcision to bring in a greater And that the Circumcision injoyned Abraham was not perfect but a signe of grace given and for the instruction of them in future times and thence wisheth Ebion not to imitate Christ in Circumcision of himself or others at last he speaks in these very words For the Lord saith Epiphanius hath removed the time of this Circumcision For he came and fulfilled it having given the perfect Circumcision of his mysteries and that not in one member onely but in the whole body sealed and circumcised from sinnes and saving not one onely part of the people that is men only but also all the people of Christians indeed signing or sealing men and women and liberally for the inheritance of the Kingdome of Heaven and not in exhibiting the seale defectively to one ranck or state virorum of men in the time of their imbecility but to all the people c. Thus far Epiphanius writes there of Infant-Baptisme and I am confident more might bee found in other places touching it had we time to seek though Epiphanius sayes nothing of it as Mr. T. weakly objects in lib. 2. Haeres 46. vel 47. in his disputation for Infants inheriting Heaven against the Hieracites We are not to teach other learned men what to speake nor when to speak nor to say they speake not at all of such a point if they do not speak where and when we expect 2. Mr. T. objects against the Greek Fathers alleadged by us EXAMEN Sect. 6. and in them against the custome of the Greek Churches touching Infant-Baptisme thus But besides the continuance of the questions to baptized persons and answered
constituted in a family Gen. 17.12 13. or in the Nation Exod. 12. 47 41 49. as Baptisme in the New Testament to all and onely those that came into the Christian Church and their children I say into the Christian Church that is the parents came in at least into the universall visible Christian Church by confessing Christ to be the Son of God and so this difference pretended by Mr. T. between baptisme and circumcision comes if not to a samenesse yet to a likenesse and so the reason thus far apparently to me is the same between both And the like argument may be drawn for the administration of the one as of the other The fourth and last exception Mr. T. makes against this argument out of Gen. 17. is Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. that these termes federate and to be signed are not convertible Answ They are convertible jure in equitie For Mr. T. will not doubt but that those signed with circumcision Gen. 17. or c. for of circumcision is the question immediately now according to Mr. T. his instances p. 4. l. 16. were federate were reckoned and to be reckoned in the covenant at the time of doing it and after till contrary cause appeared And all federate or counted within the covenant were to be signed with circumcision So this text Gen. 17.7 8 9. I am a God to thee and to thy seed thou shalt keep my covenant THEREFORE that every man-childe be circumcised But to this fourth exception Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 4. 1 Partic. Mr. T. argues That some there were circumcised to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong Of Ismael God had said that his covenant was not to be established with him Gen. 17.20 21 25. Rom. 9.7 8 9. Gal. 4.29 30. The same may be said of Esau All that were in Abrahams house whether strangers or born in the house were circumcised Gen. 17.12 13. of whom neverthelesse it may be doubted whether any promises of the covenant made with Abraham did belong to them There were other persons 2 Partic. to whom all or most of the promises in the covenant pertained that were not circumcised This may be affirmed of the females coming from Abraham the infants dying before the eighth day of just men living out of Abrahams house as Melchisedech Lot Job If any say that the females were circumcised in the circumcision of the males he saith it without proof And by like Mr. T. his answer to an Ob. perhaps greater reason may it be said that the children of beleevers are baptized in the persons of their parents and therefore are not to be baptized in their own persons But it s manifest that the Jews comprehended in the covenant made with Abraham and circumcised were neverthelesse not admitted to Baptisme by John Baptist and Christs disciples till they professed repentance 1 Conclus and faith in Christ Hence I gather that the right to Evangelicall promises was not the adequate reason of circumcising these or those but Gods precept as it is expressed Gen. 17.23 Gen. 21.4 2 That those termes are not convertible federate and to be signed 2 Conclus Answ to 1 Particular That some there were circumcised to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong Mr. Tombes argues from the non-fact to the non-equitie Animad and from the non-efficacie to non-administration and from an after discovery to crosse the present rule which arguing he knows carries not with it in other things any consequence What if de facto some were not circumcised according to the directory of administration therefore jure ought they not if opportunities and accommodations concurred What if some appeared after when men not to have the efficacie of circumcision were they not therefore justly circumcised when the institution did injoyn and cause it to be done whiles they were infants I need not inlarge upon the inconvenient sequels in the use of all ordinances if that administrations may not be though ineffectualnesse appear not alwayes after And howsoever it be apparent in some and doubtful in others and therefore infer nothing that the promise was not established that is was not effectuall to them yet it is most apparent that the institution and administration of circumcision is grounded on the expresse promise As I am the God of thee and of thy SEED therefore thou shalt keep my covenant to circumcise every male Gen. 17.7.9 The promulgation and preaching of the promise belongs to many to whom it is not after effectuall Mar. 16.15 and if the institution must go along with the promise here in Gen. 17. though it might be specially revealed to Abraham what a one Ishmael should prove then sure much more amongst men who have no such revelations And though we grant the 1. line in this 1. partic of Mr. Tombes that no promise in the covenant belonged to Ishmael yet Mr. Tombes confesseth that circumcision signed civill * Sect. 1. p. 3. l. 16. 17. p. 4. l. 1.2 promises to some of Abrahams seed And that promise Gen. 17 20. made to Ishmael of blessing and multiplying him must at least be such though eminently and as concerning the coming of Christ it is emphatically said that in Isaac shall the covenant be established Gen. 17. However Abraham looked so much on the promise I am the God of thee and of thy seed and the commentary upon it touching blessing Ishmael and the institution grounded on that promise however the effect should prove that he circumciseth Ishmael For others within the covenant yet de facto not circumcised we must needs see that it is by reason of other causes and not the want of connexion between those two foederati signandi that is to belong to the covenant and to be signed with the covenant If God exempt infants by death that died within the seven dayes being not fit in nature for so sharp a Sacrament what can we infer more against the institution of this Sacrament then against any other As for Melchisedech which was Sem as the most learned agree upon unanswerable reasons he was born 500 yeers before the institution of circumcision whose institution is not to look higher then to Abraham at the highest and so to descend downward If we could be sure that Lot and Job were not circumcised we could as surely answer that Job was not in the Land Lot not in the County where the institution of circumcision was then made known And for women the institution of circumcision reached not to them because there was no fit matter for that Sacrament That alteration of nature to intimate they were a peculiar seed set apart from the Heathens as well as the males were was done in their fathers on whom was acted more then the water can act namely to make a naturall change though no spirituall followed So that these particular instances did destroy the ground and nature of the institution
wrong parties as the Anabaptists pretend both and proclaime thereupon a nullity of Baptisme of such persons justifie that then and there is a due succession of the Church Yet thus hath the Baptisme of beleevers infants ten thousands for one of ripe years continued in Holland Scotland England and other Churches in France and Germany and where other-wise beyond the memory of the oldest man alive Where then hath been the succession of the Church all that while according to the principles of the Anabaptists touching childrens Baptisme Sure they will not hold the preaching of the Word an infallible essentiall note of a Church so long as whiles Infants grow up to be men For true preaching of the word of God on the preachers part may be to heathens Doubtlesse as M. P. and Vossius distinguish Wide is the difference of a Church in the constitution when men of ripe yeares must receive the first Seale from a Church constituted wherein the first Seal descends from the beleever to his child for any precept that appears in the Old or New Testament to the contrary But Mr T. faith in his second particular which will nothing please the Anabaptists perhaps it is not necessary to be said that the Baptisme of Infants because not lawfull is not therefore null Note Wee reply Mr T. speakes but perhaps and it is not necessary and to say so But what perhaps will M. T. say and how necessarily say Baptisme of Infants is all null by that time he hath fully concocted this principle of the unlawfullnesse of the Baptizing of any Infants as thousands of others have done and some honest men and scholars who upon the said principle of Antipaedaptists have turned Anabaptists though they drew their originall of Re-baptisme from most scripturelesse Se-baptisme I may well put the question For by that time M. Tombes is gone six leaves further Viz. in the 34 and last page of his Exercitation he begins to be beyond perhaps and speaks as if it were necessary to say that The assuming of Baptisme in ripe years by those who were washed in infancy is not a renouncing of Baptisme as some in their grosse ignorance conceit but indeed a firmer avouching of Baptisme according to Christs mind If the Reader will but marke these lines well and especially those words we have put in another character hee will easily be a Commentator to himselfe upon Mr Tombes his warping judgement To Mr T. his third particular wherein he aesserts That there was in the Church Baptism of persons grown in al ages and quotes LVDOVICVS VIVES to prove it We reply first to his assertion First that is very generall for an answer to an argument There were persons How many In all ages What meanes that In every hundred yeares or ordinary age of man Suppose sixty years or lesse What is all this to clear a continued succession of the Church in point of baptizing persons of ripe years Secondly let us deal plainly one with another in things of this nature Can M. T. or any else produce proof that in England Scotland Ireland c. there hath been baptized in either of these at least one of ripe yeares every year for these 80 or an 100 yeares last past If not or if so where is a sufficient number to continue the succession of Churches we talke of in point of adult-Baptisme Baptisme of persons of ripe years 2 To his quotation of LVD VIVES we say First he is but of yesterday to say without proofe what hath been in former ages For in all his Notes on August he cites not one Scripture not one Antiquity not one Author nor any thing that may go for a Reason but only tells us of a fashion of questions put to humane-devised God-fathers and God-mothers as they call them and of an hear-say out of Italy a likely place to preserve any pure truth 2. Though Lud. Vives were a good Schollar in Arts yet we must not give credit to him in divine things when his phrase departs from purity and his assertion from verity He saith Nems olins sacro admovebatur baptisterio that is No man of old was brought unto the holy Baptistery Font or Vessell to wash in He puts holinesse in or upon the Vessell in which these persons of ripe yeers were baptized for it should seem by him they were not baptized in a River which phrase of Lud. Vives Mr Tombes covers with a double garment first Translating Baptisterio by the word place that being wide enough in signification to include rivers Secondly Translating sacro Baptisterio the holy place by the place of holy Baptisme LVD VIVES goes on Nisi adulta jam aetate that is unlesse he were of ripe age already Now this is a grosse mistake and opposite to the best approved antiquity that tels us it was a known custome in the Churches to baptize infants within few years after the death of the Apostle John And therefore this custome could not totally invade the Churches on such a sudden without any mention in Antiquity but flowed doubtlesse downe from the Apostles So Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Gregory Natianzen Ambrose Augustine and others For the pretences made by Mr T. against some Quotations of those fathers I doubt not but to take them off and to justifie these antiquities when we come in our XIII CHAPTER to Mr Tombes his fourth Argument against the baptizing of Beleevers Infants In his Exercitation § 17. For the present we have no more to say to VIVES or Mr TOMBES upon this argument but only to admire that Mr Tombes would translate VIVES as if he had said that the person of ripe years desired to be washed more then once in the water of Baptisme for so it lies fairer in Mr Tombes his Translation to please an Anabaptist namely The person of ripe years defired to be washed in the water of Baptisme and that more then once whereas Mr Tombes following the Latin closer which is So ablui illâ— aquâ peâ—eres nec semel peteres he might have translated clearer that he desired and desired more then once what to be washed with that water CHAP. X. SEventhly Heb. 6.2 Exercitat § 14. The Argument from Heb. 6.2 for Infant-baptisme examined The Apostle speaks of the doctrine of baptismes and laying on of hands now this is not likely to be understood of laying on of hands in healing sick persons or bestowing the Holy Ghost for these were extraordinary or miraculous and therefore not to be put in the number of the principles of the oracles of God the foundation milke for babes nor of imposition of hands for ordination to speciall function in the Church for that though ordinary yet not likely to be put among the principles the foundation milk for babes therefore it remaines that it was the laying on of hands on children formerly baptized in infancy which though corruptly made a Sacrament by Papists and superstitiously abused yet being freed from the
Justin Martyrs 2. To the mention of Irenaeus we say Resp ad Qu. 115. ad orthod that this Argument is weak also For first Justin Martyr is put in Anno 130. after Christ And they say he was martyred not till Anno 165 * Helvic yea some say not till 169 * Buchol And Irenaeus was a Bishop Anno 170 and therefore must needs be famous many yeers before Justin Martyrs death and therefore well might they quote one another in their books But to allow more then Mr. T. objects namely as some object that Justin Martyr in the said place cals Irenaeus martyr when as he was martyred long after Justin Martyrs death We answer that if that word Martyr were not put in by some late Scribe since for the honour and distinction of the man however in the English the word martyr be taken yet usually in Latin and more constantly in the Greek it signifies onely a witnesse And Irenaeus was a famous witnesse to the truth by pen and profession in Justin Martyrs time though not by blood Again if Martyr be taken for a sufferer yet not alwayes for a sufferer by death Isaac is said to be persecuted by Ishmael onely mocking him Gal. 4.29 Gen. 21.9 Which kind of oppositions and worse Irenaeus no doubt met with in those persecuting times of his and of Justins as fore-runners of the effusion of their blood 3. To the mention of Origen in his Qu. ad orthodox Resp ad qu. 82. 86. we say that Chronologers and Historians those few we could cast a look upon are so uncertain about the life and death of these two Fathers as is wonderfull Bucholcer It is confessed by some that Origen and Justin Martyr were within some 14 or 15 yeers one of another And we heard afore that some made Justin Martyr far longer lived then others did now if indeed as who knows to the contrary either Origen was born sooner or Justin Martyr lived longer but a few yeers Justin Martyr might well hear of Origen who was a great Scholar very young even before he was 18 yeers old and wrote soon and much in all 7000 books as Hieroni reports I confesse for my part I speak my conscience if that be all the objection I should sooner believe mens writings quoting one another as sufficient testimonies that they lived some yeers at the same time when it is neer confest by Authors then to doubt of such because some Chronologers or Historians cipher or say them to be 14 or 15 yeers after one another But where doth these Questions ad orthodoxos quote Origen we can find but two One in the Answer to the 82. Quest on which let any ingenuous man look and observe how he is named if he in the last close of all and the fulnesse of the Answer without mention of the supposed Origen and he will say verily this was but some marginall Note since Justin Martyr thrust into the Text. The other place is in the beginning of the Answer to the 86. Question and therefore very likely to be thrusted too into the text For let a man put out the first words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is expounded by Origen and yet the sence will be full thus That to a man that is skilfull in the Hebrew tongue there is an interpretation of all the Hebrew names in the Scripture Which is further strengthened because in the close it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is if you consult that interpretation not that Origen if he Besides a man that is critically skilled in the Greek which I professe not he would haply examine if Origen be here quoted first why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man is needlesly put in And whether it be so proper to construe the verb passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is interpreted by Origen there being no praeposition according to the usuall rule And lastly whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not some other word signifying some other thing then a proper name to fignifie Origen We could give instance but for haste But to give Mr. T. an Objection which he doth not make to wit that the Qu. ad orthodox are not thought to be Justin Martyrs because in them there is such contradictions contrary to what is said in Justin Martyrs works as Mr. T. his R. Cook observeth as that in the 52. Qu. ad orthodox it is said the Witch 1 Sam. 28. did delude the eyes of all the beholders that they might think it was Samuel But in his Dialog-cum Tryphone the contrary is affirmed Qu. 142. ad Orthodox it is said that it was a created Angel that talked with Jacob but in his Dialogue cum Tryphone he proves him to be an uncreated Angel To which we answer That so learned Tossanus observes upon Augustine that he sometimes contradicts himself in those books which he accounts the very book of Augustus M. T. knew learned Mr. P. who would say Can any meer man write much and not in any thing contradict himself And for the instances they are not of moment As one Angel talked with Jacob so he saw many more There might be a materiall body patcht up by the devil according to the sphere of angelicall power and yet he must delude the eyes of the beholders too to make them think it was Samuels reall body Mr. T. goes on against those Qu. ad orthodox Now saith he what doth this Bastard Treatise say Answ These are sesquipedalia verba high words For first by this we have said it may appear that it is not yet so out of doubt that the Qu. ad Orthodoxos are not Justin Martyrs Secondly there are failings enough in the other Treatises of Justin Martyrs by which these Questions are judged Thirdly that there are not wanting men of great learning that think the said Questions may be accounted of like Authoritie with the rest of the Treatises though they were not truly Justin Martyrs And Scultetus saith that though this Treatise be not Justin Martyrs yet not to be rejected there being many Gemmes though mixt with some chaffe And H. Grotius on Matth. 19.14 quotes them with as great respect as other Fathers yea so quotes this 56. qu. Well and what doth Mr. T. say to this Treatise which he so cals Bastard This He translated all the whole 56t Question and Answer named Justin Martyrs ad Orthodox * The Qu. and Answer of the named Justin Martyr in full as Mr. T. translates it is this Qu. If Infants dying have neither praise nor blame by works what is the difference in the resurrection of those that have been baptized by others and have done nothing and of those that have not been baptized and in like manner have done nothing Answ This is the difference of the baptized from the not baptized that the baptized obtien good things meaning at the resurrection by baptisme but the unbaptized obtein not good things And they
are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their Baptisme by that faith of those that bring them to Baptisme So Mr. T. â—is translat and then Mr. T. makes these observations upon it 1 That In those times they did not baptize Infants upon Mr. Marshals ground namely upon the Covenant of Grace made to them and their Infants 2 But they baptized them because they thought the not-baptized should not obtein good things at the resurrection but the baptized should 3 That those baptized Infants obteined those good things by reason of the faith of the bringers what ever the parents were 4 That therefore they baptized the children of unbeleevers as well as of beleevers if they were brought Mr. T. hoping by this translation and these Notes to bring the Author and his words into disgrace as he himself hints it to us But we answer in generall that Mr. T. hath likewise quoted Authors and among them even his much esteemed Ludovicus Vives that have had their harsh expressions and worse as before we have noted 2. The intent and manner of quoting the Quest. to the orthodox was onely to testifie that the baptisme of Infants was a known custome in those times In particular we answer first to his first observation that the said 56. Question was not urged by my self or Mr. T. to prove baptisme of Infants upon the ground of the Covenant But the question being whether in point of Fact the Churches used anciently to baptize Infants to that the quotation of those Questions named Justin Martyrs was alledged and to that it serveth fitly and fully For he was a very ancient Author in the judgement of divers learned men Sylburgius thinks that he was a Justin that might write about the time of Theodoret. But Photius thinks that it might be Iustin Martyr interlined by some other Iustin or other after as Ruffinus dealt by Origen as Mr. T. confesseth To Mr. T. second observation we answer That as we that are believers as it is in the Answer to that 56. Question cannot applaud nor comfort our selves in a willing neglect of baptizing our children according to the Gospel institution as we now stand to maintain so doubtlesse we are to expect good things on Gods part to our children according to the intent of Baptisme We find it so on earth in their comfortable application of baptisme at ripe yeers and why not then to beleeve the fruit of it in heaven if they dye in childhood Why may not Baptisme as well comfort the supposed Iustin Martyr and us as Circumcision did the Patriarks concerning their childrens receiving the first seal This expression in this 56. Question and Answer is esteemed by Grotius on Matth. 19.14 whom Mr. T. so oft quotes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To his third observation we answer That there is no such clause or intimation in the said place of the 56. Quest. ad orthodox as Mr. T. here inserts namely what ever the parents be The contrary is more probable the Author calling the bringers of the Infants beleevers And who so likely to bring the children as the parents And therefore the parents here most probably are those believers And whereas Mr. T. renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy worthy of good things he might by warrant from the Gospel * As Matth. 10.11 enquire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is fit or meet that is to receive you as it is expounded in v. 14. have rendred it by a more orthodox and fit terme viz. meet or fit And lastly it being more probable then any thing Mr. T. can bring to the contrary that the children were brought to baptisme by their beleeving parents and so made meet for good things as the fruit of it let the Reader judge whether all this doth not imply that respect here might be had to the Covenant of grace as the ground of baptizing children which Mr. T. but now so peremptorily denyed as if it were infallibly contrary to the Text of the Author To his fourth observation we need say no more but that Mr. T. speaks it without all warrant or such probability from the text of the Author as there is in it to the contrary Now let the world judge whether the words of the Author considering his time are so vain or so impertinent as Mr. T. would meke them had they been alledged in full and beyond that the quotation extended to Thus for Justin Martyr Next we come to Irenaeus IRENAEVS who lived in the same century namely in the next age to the Apostles and not at the last end of that age neither For Bucholcerus one of the most approved Chronologers by Vsher puts him in the yeer after Christ 178. And Helvicus puts him higher namely in the yeer Testis D. H. secum enutritus 170. And both of them put him down as Bishop at that time of Lyons saith Bucholcerus and therefore was famous no doubt divers yeers afore and an observer of the customes of the Churches Having this advantage for that purpose that he was the Scholar of Polycarp as Polycarp was Scholar or disciple to some of the Apostles as divers Chronologers tell us That which Irenaeus hath to our purpose in the point in hand is in his 2 Book 39. Chap. about the middle His words are these Magister ergo existens c. that is Therefore being a teaching Master he had also the age of such a Master not refusing or going beyond a man nor dissolving the law of humane kind in himself but sanctifying every age by that similitude that was in him to it For he came to save all men by himself All I say who by him are BORN-AGAIN unto or into God INFANTS and LITTLE-ONES boyes and young men and elder men Therefore he went through every age and was made an Infant to Infants sanctifying Infants Among little ones a little one sanctifying them that have this age being also made an example to them of pietie and justice or righteousnesse and subjection Among young men being made a young man and sanctifying them to the Lord so also an elder to the elder that he might be a perfect teaching master not onely according to the exposition of truth but also according to age sanctifying the elder being made also an example to them And then he went also unto death that he might be the first-born from the dead holding the primacy in all things c. So Irenaeus Whom we have translated above and beneath the place we are to use that there might be the lesse exception by any that they could not see the coherence and scope of the place The words we stand upon in which Irenaeus intimates the baptisme of Infants in that his time next after the Apostles are All I say who by him are BORN AGAIN unto or into God or according to God INFANTS and LITTLE ONES c. The word Renascuntur that is regenerated or new-born or born again
premisses who before expresly named baptisme and ioyns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together Consecration or sanctification Thus Greg. Naz. on whose words learned Vossius speaks my sence Non igitur c. Therefore saith Vossius Nazianzen doth not deny the baptisme of little children whom if there be any danger of death he commands also to be baptized but onely judgeth that otherwise it may not unprofitably be deferred to the third or fourth yeer Which is onely one Doctors opinion and not the common judgement of the ancient Church Thus Vossius Take we in also the Note of Vincent Lirinens cap. 39. Quicquid unus vel alter Patrum quamâ—is ille sanctus c. that is Whatsoever one or other of the Fathers albeit he be holy and learned c. shall think besides or contrary to all the rest let that go among his own proper hidden and private opiniol's or conceits as different and severed from the Authoritie of that common judgement c. And lastly give us leave to adde our observation 1 That according to the designe in hand Nazianzen holds the baptisme of little children that have not yet the use of reason not as an unwritten tradition but according to his judgement as well as others rightly grounded on the Scriptures in the institution and administration of circumcision and that of the sprinkling of the Paschal blood on the doore-posts Exod. 12. Had baptisme of Infants been held in his time onely as a Tradition he had not argued it from Scripture 2 That for deferring of baptisme of some till three yeers old or lesse as he saith what did this conduce more to that which some of the Anabaptists require at Baptisme as manifestations of true grace then to baptize them at eight or ten dayes old upon Gods Covenant with the believing parent Here to clear things as we go we must answer some objections made against what we alledge out of Nazianzen First Mr. D. in his Antichrist unmasked Objections of H. D. against Nazianzen cleared 1. Obj. Nazianzen saith he restrains baptisme of Infants to danger but there is no danger if they be not baptized Ergo Nazianzens mind is not that Infants should be baptized Answ This Argument playes with an equivocation of the word danger H. D. means there is no spirituall danger if an Infant dies before it be baptized But Nazianzen means danger of bodily death and therefore gives it as a precept or command that in case there be danger that the Infant may dye before it be sealed with baptisme let it be baptized according to the figure thereof circumcision c. See before Obj. 2. Nazianzen saith H. D. was not baptized till he was 30. yeers old as it is said In his life Answ If that in Nazianzens life say this truly yet this might be by reason of the persecutions of those times or indisposition of his parents or other pressing necessities and therefore doth infer no more then that circumcision ought not after the Israelites came into Canaan to be administred till men were fourty yeers old because so long it was deferred in the wildernesse Christ himself was not baptized till thirty yeers old yet the Anabaptists will not make a rule of this that onely those of just that age must be baptized Sure enough if Nazianzen his baptisme was deferred past childhood it was not intended by him for a regulating example but oft in that Oration fore-quoted in severall places exhorts to hasten Baptisme * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Hast an Infant lest improbity snatch away the opportunity let him be sanctified from his infancie meaning baptisme having spoken in the very next preceding words against delay of bapâ—isme Naz. Orat. â—0 p. 648. See also p. 646 Think all time to be certain determined for baptisme and not to defer it after the example of Christ not baptized till thirtie yeers old * Ibid. p. 658. Edit Paris Graec. Lat. And you heard in the place quoted that he mentions deferring in any case but till 3 or 4 yeers old or lesse sometimes which is all one in effect with baptizing beleevers Infants at three moneths or three weeks unlesse the mathematicall consideration of words spoken without knowledge as Persius his Parrat spake Greek * One of the Anabaptists in a book called The character of the Beast saith If one confesse his sins though there be no signe of grace he ought to be baptized prevails with some Secondly Mr. Tombes objects in his EXAMEN against Nazianzen EXAMEN Sect. 6. 1. He objects with an interrogation but doth Greg. Nazianzen saith Mr. T. seem onely to restrain it to the case of necessitie The words saith he are plain that Nazianzen gives the reason why Infants in danger of death should be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might not misse of the common grace But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gives his opinion of others that they should stay longer that they might be instructed and so their minds and bodies might be sanctified Thus Mr. T. Animadvers We answer First if Greg. Nazianzen doth give reason why Infants should be baptized in case they are not likely to live to be of riper yeers it is so much the better for us Secondly he doth give another reason beside that of partaking of common grace namely 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it is better they should be sanctified without a feeling of it then to depart without the seal So he thinks they are sanctified too in infancie as well as at riper yeers 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A reason also of this to us is circumsion that was wont to be done on the eight day c. Thirdly we answer that all three Reasons stand in force as well for all believers Infants God putting them under the promise Gen. 17. as for those Infants that are in danger of death Fourthly that Nazianzen urgeth divers divine Reasons to him evincing for the baptisme of Infants not in danger of death but for the delaying of others not in danger of death he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I give my opinion He cals it his opinion And what is it that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such children should stay till three or foure yeers old more or lesse And what is to be expected from children of that age more then from Infants towards baptisme For Nazianzen himself confesseth that though they may then hear and answer some spirituall things yet they understand imperfectly But doth Nazianzen give us there any Scripture for this differing None Doth he give any Reason Even in effect the same as for baptizing of Infants in danger of death to wit that they may be sanctified in mind and body Secondly EXAMEN Sect. 6. Mr. T. objects upon our alledging Nazianzen against all the Greek Fathers in effect that we have alledged and the custome of the Greek Churches touching Infant-baptisme first thus It is wonder to me saith Mr.
he recites Monimus quoting Augustine And at the end of Fulgentius his workes are printed at Basil together with them Augustines or rather Prospers booke of answers to articles imposed upon him and some bodies 6 bookes Hypognosticon in answer to the Calumnies of the Pelagians Now whether all this may argue Fulgentius his relyance on Augustines arguments let the reader judge For Mr T. to say Prosper Fulgentius and those three Councels rested on Augustines wordes and to bring us no instances or to say they rested on his arguments and to bring us no paralell of both their arguments is to dictate not to prove Or to say they relyed on his arguments and after to say they relyed on his wordes is an expression of inconsistencies Or to say they relyed on his arguments is improbable Likely they might rely upon arguments by him used but not as his but as divine out of the Scriptures where Augustine urged them But for Mr T. to say they relyed altogether on Augustines arguments is impossible for Mr T. to make good to us or for us to believe of those worthyes For the Councells Mr T. doth not intimate much lesse Cipher to us which for there are many of those names he means If he mean those Coetanian convented in the same 416 year after Christ Reus Bucholc Perk. when about by consent of Chronologers Pelagianisme began to be condemned in Councils and Augustine had now a while been famous Wee answer it is true that in this Councill of Carthage Pelagius and Coelestius the Hereticks are condemned but by notable Scripture-arguments without the least mention of Augustine And it is true that that Councels Epistle to P. Innocent the first and that P. Innocents Epistle backe to that Councill are by some body put among the Epistles of Augustine and are there the 90. and 91. Ep. But neither doth P. Innocent in his Epistle take the least particular notice of Augustine nor do the Councill in their Epistle Nor do I know whether Mr T. doth confide that Augustine was at this Council by the names subscribed thus To the most blessed and most honoured brother Innocent the Pope Aurelius Numidius Rusticâ—anus c. who were present in the Councill of Carthage Therein being then Aurelius Bishop of Carthage as appears in the Epistle of the aforesaid Council of Milevis to the Emperours Archad and Honor. But when Augustine Bpp of Hippon is named at a Council he is called Augustinus And if there be two of the same name at a Council they are both named with alius As at this Council of Carthage Restitutus alius Restitutus and Victor alius Victor But here is but once Aurelius and no Augustinus As for the said Council of Milevis it is true that in their Epistle to P. Innocent there is among the rest expressed Silvanus Valentinus Aurelius Donatus Restitutus Lucianus Alypius Augustinus Placentius c And that that Council also was convented against Pelagius and Coelestius But we finde not either in the Acts of that Council or in the Epistle or c. that there is any more particular notice of Augustine then of any of the rest much lesse of any of his arguments against the Pelagians or of his urging any one argument Yea Bucholcerus saith that after these two Councils viz. in Anno 417. Augustine began to refute the Errors of Pelagius By this Augustine should rather learn at these Councills to dispute against Pelagianisme then they to rely on him In the next Council of Carthage in order of the printed Councils though Augustine be there yet any Dispute of Pelagianisme is not there In the seventh Council of Carthage Bin. alias a part or 2 Session of the sixt we finde but five titles of chapters or canons But they say there were recited 105 whereof a great part were those at the third Council of Carthage and in the Council of Milevis as they say in the title of this seventh or sixth Council But that which they call the third Council of Carthage they date in the title to be in Anno 438 which was saith Bucholcerus 8 years after Augustines death If they mean that Council of Carthage and Milevis of the same 416 year after Christ to them we have answered already If the residue of the Canons of this seventh Council of Carthage are as the notes on it tell us and I rather believe recited in the following African Council convented in the time of Boniface and Celestin there indeed that Council is in diverse Canons against Pelagius and Coelestius too and that about baptisme of Infants which wee mentioned afore at large But there is no mention at all of Augustines persons or rrguments there and is after that which Mr T. Quotes For the Council of Arles if Mr T. meanes the second It was too ancient being under Siricius who was Anno 385. I say too ancient to be swayed by Augustine who was not famous according to Mr T. till Anno 405. or 410. against Pelagianisme if there had been in it any debate about it as there was none If Mr T. meane the third Council of Arles this was too young and of too later times being Anno 461 or as others 514 under P. John 1. for Augustine to be there Nor was there need of his arguments for there are but few Canons and none about Pelagianisme It is true one Faustus writes an Epistle to one Lucidus a Pelagian against his Errours which he had vented in a book which Caesarinus Avitus and Johannes Antiochenus confuted in writing and this Council approves Faustus his Epistle in neither of all which is there the least mention that I can find of Augustines name or arguments If Mr T. think I have not said enough or not punctually to his 3 Councils and two Fathers let him blame his non-quotations and generall and confused intimations Thus of Fulgentius Prosper and the three Councils Next Mr T. objects that Augustine being counted as one of the four Doctors of the Church like the four Evangelists EXAMEN §. 8. his opinion was the rule of the Churches judgement and the Schooles determination as to the great hurt of Gods Church Luther and others have been of late Answer Animadver To that of Augustines respect and authority in matters of dispute we have spoken once and again that it hath not beene so high as Mr T. his elevation There were sundry Antagonists and some honestly minded as Acrius c. did pritty well keep Augustine Hierom c. from too much hight and extravagancy as the Calvanists did the Lutherans and like instances might begiven of later times But Augustine EXAMEN Ibid. saith Mr T. proved originall sinne from the baptisme of Infants and so did the Council of Milevis anathematizing them that did deny it Ergo great was the sway of Augustines authority We answer Animadver having spoken of the Councills afore and of their Scripture arguments that Augustine proved Infant-baptisme from
baptizing the Infants of those whose Ancestors were believers the next Parents remaining in unbelief These things shew that men have departed from the Rule when they know not where to stay THese four Arguments of M. T. to wit the 6 7 8 9. I have put together being much alike for notion and validity Animad and so apt to receive one and the same generall Answer by way of retorsion thereby to discover their weaknesse The summe of them is this That which hath occasioned many human-inventions Errours faults in Discipline and unnecessary disputes is doubtfull But the tenet and practice of Infant Baptisme hath occasioned all these Therefore the tenet and practice of Infant Baptisme is uncertain We retorâ— That which hath occasioned many human-inventions Errours faults in Disciplâ—ne and unnecessary disputes is doubtfull But the tenet and practice of adult Baptisme as held and used among the Anabaptists hath occasioned all these Therefore the tenet and practice of adult Baptisme as among them is doubtfull The particulars to be made good in the minor are foure That 1 Humane Inventions 2 Error 3 Faith in Discipline 4 Unnecessary disputes Have been occasion by the adult baptisme of the Anabaptists These foure I shall make good not by bare asserting or torturing of Authors of one of which M. T. is somewhat guilty in most of the particulars hee hath produced in the said foure Arguments but by plain allegation of approved Authors And this I shall doe as forced thereunto now at last by M. T. in these his strange kinds of arguments which I have forborne all this while though oft incited thereunto by M. T. before in his Exercitation and that of his Examen But now we must by this course take off that aspersion laid peculiarly on us for baptising believers infants in a conscientious way So that wee intend in this our answer rather to be defensive then offensive 1 Humane inventions have been ocâ—asioned by the adult baptisime of the Anabaptists 1 We are informed from the third Councell of Carthage a Bin. Ca. 34. and and by M. T. his Walafridus b De rebus Eccles cap. 26. That sick men lying speechlesse might be baptised upon the witnesse of men touching their former condition By this is intimated that dipping was not in this case used 2 The fourth Councel of Carthage c Bin. Ca. 85. tels us thus this That those of ripe years to be baptised must be dyetted and kept from flesh and wine along time and after that having been examined severall times they are to be baptised 3 Epiphanius d Epiphan Anacephal pag. 408. Ediâ— Lat. Baâ—il declares that the Eunomians called in the margin Anabaptists dore-baptise all that come to them yea they re-baptise the Arians also who deny Christ to be God and they rebaptise them sayth Epiphanius turning their heads downward and their heels upward 4 Vossius e Gerard. Ioh. Vossius de Anabaptismo Thes 17. take notice out of Epiphanius of this We are not ignorant sayth Vossius that the Hemâ—robaptists thought that none could be saved unlesse they were daily baptised whence they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Daily-baptists and so were clensed from their sins But they were a sect of Jews as we know out of Epiphanius the 17 Sect of the Jews 5 The same Vossius f Geâ— Iohn Vossius de Anabap Thes 18. assetts that the Marcionites did say for which they had no reason that Baptisme might be iterated and Tertiated That is repeated and done three times I will bring you sayth Vossius a place out of Epiphanius against the Marcionists Haeres 42. When Marcion had in his own Citie defiled a virgin and fled and was found in that great sinne the juggler invented to himselfe a second laver asserting that it is lawfull to give remission of sins unto the number of three lavers that is three baptismes whereby if any one hath back-sliden after his first having acted repentance he might receive the second and likewise the third if he be taken in a sin after the second How he proves this opinion Epiphanius sayth Vossius subjoynes viz. The first baptisme he collects in that Christ was baptized by John The second and third because Christ sayth I have a BAPTISME to be baptized with and what will I if I have already finished it Again I have a cup to drinke and what will I if I shall now fulfill it Both places sayth Vossius are taken out of Marcion his Pseudo-Gospell that is False Gospell To the first there is somewhat like Luke 12.50 To the second somwhat Mat. 20 22 23. But Christ speaks there not of the baptisme of water but of the baptisme of bloud that is of his passion and death Sutable to this oft baptising M. T. hath two passages The first In his Exercit at pag. the last Nor is sayth he the assuming of baptisme in ripe years by those who were washed in infancie a renouncing of baptisme as some in their grosse ignorance conceit but indeed a firmer avouching of baptisme according to Christs minde The second is in his Examen Part 2 Sect. 4. M. T. his note in the margin is OF REBATING His words in his answer to Master Marshall there are these YOu goe on § 4. Of re-baptizing Since that time multitudes in Germany have imbraced his opinion who because they opposed paedobaptisme were forced to reiterate their owne baptisme and thence were called Anaebaptists Afore I proceed because it goes so currant that rebaptization is not only an errour but also an heresie let me beg of you one good argument to prove it unlawfull inse or intrinsecally I meane without respect to scandall or the like cause by accident for a man that hath beene baptized rightly to be baptized againe One baptisme Eph. 45. is not to me all one as once baptizing no more then one faith once beleiving We are regenerated by baptisme and a man is borne but once But are we not borne a gaine by the Word and must that be but once preached Is not sinne mortified the Church sanctified by baptisme and are not these often And for example if there were as good for paedobaptisme as that Act. 19.5 6. for rebaptizing the controversie were at an end with me But if heresie must be determined by the votes of men Smectymnuus may be judged an Arian and the opposers of Pasche Hereticks this by the way though not besides the matter So M. T. 6 Schâ—mer g Scham Panstr Tom 4. lib. 4. cap. 11. § 24. quotes out of severall Authors with him in credit for that purpose the wont of some in old time to dip the party baptized at ripe years three times immediately on after another at his baptisme He quotes out of some ancient author now known onely by the false name of Areopagita Chap. 2. These words Then he the Minister bids him the baptised renounce the Devill and cleave to Christ Anoint all
about Baptisme Thus of M. T. his 6 7 8 9 Arguments with a generall and particular answers thereunto CHAP. XX. NExt we come to M. T. his tenth Argument which is this Exercitat § 23. That in the midst of the darknesse under the papacie the same men opposed Infant-baptisme who opposed invâ—cation of Saints prayer for the dead adoration of the crosse c. This is manifest 1 Out of the 66 Sermon of Bernard on the Canticles whereof the Hereticks as he calls them who he said boasted themselves to be successors of the Apostles and named themselves Apostolick He hath these words They deride us because we baptise infants because we pray for the dead c. And in his 140 Epistle to Hildefonsus he complains of Henricus the Heritick that he took away Holi-days c. and denied the grace of baptisme to infants 2 From the Epistle of P Abbat-Cluniacensis to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis and Henricus holding errors digested into five heads 1 That little ones are not to be baptized 2 That Churches or Altars ought not to be made 3 That the Crosse of our Lord is not to be adored c. 3 From Lucas Osiander his Epitom of the Ecclesiasticall Historie Cent. 13. l. 1. c. 4. at the year 1207 where he accuseth the Albigensis as consenting with the Anabaptists 4 To which I add That in the ages neere the Apostles Tertulian in his book of Baprisme cap. 18. Greg. Nazianzen in his 40 Oration of holy baptisme disswade the baptisme of infants unlesse the danger of death happen Thus far M. T. Animad Note as an introduction to our Answer That Bernard and Cluniacensis lived about the same time That the very same Henricus alias Heinricus mentioned by Bernard for an Heretick is the same man in all probability that Cluniaâ—ensis mentioneth And in both Authors he is called as by himselfe pretended to be an Apostle Now for Answer we say to M. T. his particular 1 That the same man that opposed Infant baptisme opposed the authority of the Old Testament So did Henricus at this time So sayth Cluniacensis of Henricus alias Heinricus in the place M.T. quotes out of e See more before of Cluniacensis touching Henricus and de Bruis abundantly Chap. 14 of our Animad pag. 160 161 c. Cluniacensis So have the opposers of Infant-baptisme since See Cloppenburgius in his book called The Gangâ—en of Anabaptisticall Divinity Some particulars we have translated afore in the Catalogues of the errors of the Anabaptists Yea the said Henricus and De Bruis doubted of the authority of Pauls Epistles in the New Testament So M.T. his Cluniacensis 2 That formerly those same men that opposed Infant baptisme held all those dreadfull errors we numbred up a little afore Cap. 15. 3 That many of the same men that opposed Infant baptism were either Arians or Pelagians or Socinians or Arminiaus as we have formerly shewed out of Epiphanius Augustin M. Phillips and M. Ainsworth And experience at this day shews us in them that together with Anabaptisme hold universall redemption and free-will 4 That Bernard did justly call Henricus Heretick he holding that the Old Testament and Pauls Epistles were of doubtfull authority as Cluniacensis tells us out of their own writings 5 On the contrary part the same men that have held Infant-baptisme were 1 Gâ—eat lights to the Church As Justin Martyr Irenaeus Cyprian Gregory Nazianzen Tertullian Hierom Augustine c. 2 Glorious Instruments in Reformation Luther Melancthon Bullinger Calvin 3 Were renowned Martyrs dying for Christ Some ancient as Peter Martyr Irenaeus c. Some later as Master Philpot see his Letter in the Book of Martyrs against Anabaptisme A most pious ☞ Note learned and brave letter which may suffice for a Treatise upon the point penned by such a gracious spirit that soone after poured out his bloud for Christ See his Letter at the year 1555 in the book of Martyrs Volume 3. pag. 606. colum 2. of the last Edition in the reign of Queen Mary among M. Philpots Letters Animad To M. T. his second particular in this argument we answer that M. T. reckons out of Cluniacensis five errors that Henricus and De Bruis held against but leaves out the great error they held for which was that the Authority of the Old Testament and of the Epistles of Paul in the New were of doubtfull authority as we touched afore To M.T. his fourth particular touching the ALBIGENSES as they are called in his book We answer That it is true that in M. T. his forequoted place Exercit. there is mention of the ALBINGENSES for I suppose he means them but not a word there of their consenting with the Anabâ—ptists For the naked words are these Ablegabat Innocentius papa cum Petro quod am suo legato duodâ—cim Cisterciencis Sectae Abbates in Albingensium terram ut in viam â—osdem suâ praedicatione reduâ—ment c. That is Pope Innocent with One Peter his Legat sent away twelve Abbâ—ts of the Cistercian Sect or Order into the land of the Albingenses to the intent they might by their preaching bring them back into the way And then tells how they called a Councill of the Arch-bishops Bishops and others to consult which would be the best way to enter upon that design which the Bishop of Oxford advised to be not by externall pomp as they were honourable Bishops but by the preaching of the word and integrity of life And to give them an example he himselfe sent home his glorious retinnue with all the horses coaches and sumpters and went with a few Clergie men on foot and performed the businesse of preaching strenuously And so the story goes off from the Albingenses But being not willing to shift off the businesse we looked afore in that Osiander his Epitome in the year before namely Anno 1206 but in the same Chapter M.T. quotes and there wee found the nest which is little for M.T. his advantage or for the credit of the Anubaptists The inferâ—ing here of the bare story is answer enough In english it is this The Latine as a witnesse of our faithfulnesse in translating you have in the margin EXorta est progressu temporis vires acquisivit haeresis Albingensium sive Albiensium sive Albianorum in Gallia quos alii ab autore allii à loco Galliae sic dictos putant ea Romae primò coepisse postea verò in comitatu Tolosato etiam intra viros illustres longè lateque sparsa dicitur quin etiam in Angliam penetrasse scribitur Dogmata haec illis attribuuntur Duo esse Principia Deum videlicet bonum Deum malum hoc est Diabolum qui omnia corpora crëet Bonum autem Deum creare animas Christi corpus non aliter esse in pane quà m in aliis rebus Baptismum abjiciunt Ire in Ecclesias vel in eis orare nihil prodesse